~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

The difficulty of hell

Hell is problematic. It is clear from Scripture that it exists. No one wants to go there. But if it exists there are people in it. That means that forever they are in some form of torment. It is easy to see why pastors used to major heavily on it – frightened people are more easily convinced to do what they might otherwise not do. Want to commit adultery? Is a few moment’s pleasure worth Eternity burning? It was not an accident that the mediaeval state used burning as a punishment – it was a very literal reminder of what awaited the heretic. I’m not getting into the argument about the Church not burning anyone, it encouraged the State to do so, and back then things were like that. All very scary. All very open to modern atheists arguing that God is a moral monster. God is our Father, God is a Father who is happy to see his child suffer for ever; and Christians ask atheists to believe God is love and wonder why they don’t? The arguments are familiar enough.

In my leisure time I have been reading a small book by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope that all men be saved?In it he makes a point which rings true but which I had not seen others make, which is compare the sayings about hell with post-resurrection sayings, and then point out that the former are mostly pre-resurrection, aimed, he thinks, at meeting his hearers where they were with concepts they would understand. He suggests that if we take all of them in the light of the post-resurrection experience, we get a different view, once in which it is men and their stiff-necks which confine them to hell, rather than it being God who condemns them.

St Isaac the Syrian reminds us that “There is no sin that cannot be forgiven except the one without repentance”. We are not God, we cannot judge as He does. But we can see what Christ says and we can try to follow His example. Even a convicted thief could be saved at the last – and why, because he repented of his sins, he confessed his belief in Christ and he did his best to witness to his Lord. As he goes on to say elsewhere:

Just because (the terms) wrath, anger, hatred, and the rest are used of the Creator, we should not imagine that He (actually) does anything in anger or hatred or zeal. Many figurative terms are employed in the Scriptures of God, terms which are far removed from His (true) nature. And just as (our) rational nature has (already) become gradually more illuminated and wise in a holy understanding of the mysteries which are hidden in (Scripture’s) discourse about God – that we should not understand everything (literally) as it is written, but rather that we should see, (concealed) inside the bodily exterior of the narratives, the hidden providence and eternal knowledge which guides all – so too we shall in the future come to know and be aware of many things for which our present understanding will be seen as contrary to what it will be then; and the whole ordering of things yonder will undo any precise opinion we possess now in (our) supposition about Truth. ’[‘The Second Part’ XXXIX, 19]

We should recall what St Isaac wrote about God being love, and about his mercy:

“In love did God bring the world into existence; in love is God going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of the One who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised.”

‘As a handful of sand thrown into the ocean, so are the sins of all flesh as compared with the mercy of God’.

Now I can see that from the pastoral point of view this might cause problems – what is the sanction for evil? But then, from the pastoral point of view, traditional concepts of hell-fire cause problems. Is anyone ever brought to love by fear? It is love which God offers. If we cannot access that, and if we cannot be good without fear of sanction, then have we really come to God at all?

God is love, and perfect love casts out fear, so why would we fear God? I an ashamed of myself when I do not not follow his ways, and conscious that my sins are often more omission – stuff I never did and should have done. I always feel better after confession, but that’s because I’ve said sorry to my Father, and I am sorry, not because I am scared of him, but because it hurts me to hurt him. That, I think is what true love does.

Post navigation

572 thoughts on “The difficulty of hell”

Actually Jessica, I just added that very book to my Amazon Wish List. Knowing it contains serious errors, I thought I’d buy a copy and go over it with my trusty pink hi-liter to see how many problem phrases I can find in one sitting. Perhaps when I complete this task, I’ll look you up again and we can compare notes. I’ll show you what I think is problematic, and you can find reasons that they aren’t. You and I aren’t peas in the pod, but you are sweet and that really counts in my book. God bless. Ginnyfree

I’m only about 25 pages into the book right now (and 25 pages into other books as well and 150 pages into a book on the middle game of chess by Paul Keres and Alex Kotov and 150 pages into a book on Orthodox Christianity by Hilarion Alfeyev). I don’t see any heresies…

P.S. The title is a dead give away. No, Jess, Origen made the same blunder. Even went so far as to add the devil and his pals to the list of eventually saved creatures. It is a well known merry go round called denial. It just keeps spinning and spinning and spinning. It ends just as soon as you step off the ride.

Chalcedon, without talking way too much longer, Origen is a dead fish to me. While I acknowledge his contributions to the study of Scripture and especially his Hexapla, I also know quite a bit about his history, that those who followed him as a spiritual guide into error and heresy worked after his death to sanitize his works so as to redeem his reputations and spare the labors those same students and followers put in. It was their sweat that did most of the actual work. In short, Origen stinks and is condemned. Like I said, why draw waters from a tainted well, when the Headwaters and their Source are so available? More than one person has fallen for the revisionist historical records that abound. Not this gal. I got too much other stuff to read anyway and have no time to look into looser’s books. God bless. Ginnyfree

The condemnation at the fifth council was of the three chapters, not Origen, so why do you go further than the Church goes? Origen was probably the most gifted theologian in the early church, and if we had disregarded his insights we should have gone wrong on some important issues. In terms of his legacy, it is an interesting question as to the role played by his disciples.

Blah, blah. blah. I’ve said all I’m gonna say about the loser. You can defend him all you want to, but you’re not gettin’ another peep outta me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless I absolutely have to. He’s a loser and condemned man, anathematized post mortem. God bless. Ginnyfree

Here is my source for my statement, and note that the footnote is to this: Prat, Ferdinand (1911). “Origen and Origenism”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York City: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 2008-10-03.

‘While Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople condemned Origen and a form of apocatastasis at the Synod of Constantinople (543); experts are divided whether the Second Council of Constantinople (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) in 553 ratified the condemnation authentically as “It is [only] certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.”[13]

Sadly, it seems that Origen had his share of enemies and that he was either quite mad or slandered ruthlessly: especially with the story related by Eusebius of his self-castration. Was it true or not? There is nothing to substantiate evidence for or against this charge . . . so who knows?

Exactly. I tend to give the man the benefit of any doubts due to his work. However, he can never be canonized due to the unsubstantiated and unverifiable attacks on his person. Sadly, I guess we will never know the truth of Origen this side of heaven.

P.P.S. I have about 20 pages of apologetic already to launch on this guy and I’ve had to go there once too often. He is a loser, not a Saint and no Church Doctor or Church Father. Leastways not in the Catholic Church. You Anglicans can canonize him all you want but it still won’t produce and miracles of healing at his tomb. It takes three these days. Perhaps you could start the Process and Postulate. Go for it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I agree that he will never be a saint Ginny but he is considered a Father by the Church and quoted 16 times in our present Catechism. So his thought is considered important . . . but the history on him is so sketchy and filled with unverifiable accusations that, if true, means he fell into heresy and if not, means the poor man was calumniated by his enemies. We will never know the truth I’m afraid during our lives.

Alrightie Dave, I hate to do this but you asked for it, so here goes. I think this is a bit more weighty a statement about Origen and a few other trashed men as well but don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself and decide if you still need to defend a condemned man and his works.

LETTER XXXV: To Julian, Bishop of Cos.
Leo, bishop of the city of Rome to his well-beloved brother, Julian the bishop.
I. Eutyches’ heresy involves many other heresies………….that you may offer a united and strenuous resistance to those who seek to corrupt the gospel of Christ, since the wisdom and the teaching of the Holy Spirit is one and the same in you as in us: and whosoever does not receive it, is not a member of Christ’s body and cannot glory in that Head in which he denies the presence of his own nature………………for he who denies the true Manhood of Jesus Christ, must needs be filled with many blasphemies, being claimed by Apollinaris as his own, seized upon by Valentinus, or held fast by Manichaeus: none of whom believed that there was true human flesh in Christ……… The two natures are to be found in Christ. …….Therefore neither was the Word changed into flesh nor flesh into the Word…..He is not one by His Father and another by His mother, but the same, in one way by His Father before every beginning, and in another by His mother at the end of the ages: so that He was “mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ” in whom dwelt “the fulness of the Godhead bodily: ” because it was the assumed (nature) not the Assuming (nature)…..The soul of Christ and the body of Christ were real in the full human sense, though the circumstances of His birth were unique. But as to that which Eutyches dared to say in the court of bishops “that before the Incarnation there were two natures in Christ, but after the Incarnation one,”he ought to have been pressed by the frequent and anxious questions of the judges to render an account of his acknowledgment, lest it should be passed over as something trivial, though it was seen to have issued from the same fount as his other poisonous opinions. For I think that in saying this he was convinced that the soul, which the Saviour assumed, had had its abode in the heavens before He was born of the Virgin Mary, and that the Word joined it to Himself in the womb. But this is intolerable to catholic minds and ears: because the Lord who came down from heaven brought with Him nothing that belonged to our state: for He did not receive either a soul which had existed before nor a flesh which was not of his mother’s body. Undoubtedly our nature was not assumed in such a way that it was created first and then assumed, but it was created by the very assumption. And hence that which was deservedly condemned in Origen must be punished in Eutyches also, unless he prefers to give up his opinion, viz. the assertion that souls have had not only a life but also different actions before they were inserted in men’s bodies…… He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men,………But true Man was united to God and was not brought down from heaven as regards a pro-existing soul, nor created out of nothing as regards the flesh: it wore the same person in the Godhead of the Word and possessed a nature in common with us in its body and soul……… The magnitude of the subject urges us to a lengthy discussion: but with one of your learning there is no need for such copious dissertations, especially as we have already sent a sufficient letter to our brother Flavian by our delegates for the confirmation of the minds, not only of priests but also of the laity. The mercy of God will, we believe, provide that without the loss of one soul the sound may be defended against the devil’s wiles, and the wounded healed.
Dated 13th June in the consulship of the illustrious Asturius and Protogenes .
449 A.D.
There ya go – a long list of various errors that are called poisonous by Saint Leo the Great who details quite a few of them and says their origin is Origen! and then tells us that because they were condemned when Origen passed them off as Church teaching and punished, (love that assertion of a punishment rather than a reward for Origen’s contribution to theology) that these same heresies, (note it is a Pope calling them heresy) must be also condemned and punished in Eutychis.
Now if Pope Leo the Great is calling Origen’s heresies poison from a tainted font, then telling you they are condemned and that they were repeated by Apollinaris as his own, Valentinus, and Manichaeus (to name only a few trying to corrupt the Gospel) before they got taken up by Eutychis, how can you conclude that Origen is even remotely a credible source for sound teaching on the Incarnation and the Trinity and a host of other errors listed above as only a few of his condemned teachings?
Here is a link to follow if you want to read more. As for me and my house, we serve the Lord. You can serve two masters if you want, but not me.https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/677/St._Leo_the_Great___Letters_60_173.html
Good luck. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I think we have all heard of the errors but the history is still unsure or the missing writings and the charges of heresy: and I am not saying that some of what he said was in keeping with what after his death decided by the Church in regards to certain statements. But that is hardly a problem when the early Church was trying to work out that which was never even asked of the Apostles nor subjects broached. That said – Origenism created a stink and still does but Church still preserves what it can of his writings and utilizes his understanding to shed light on us today even in our Catechism. The article at New Advent seems to provide a good overview from my thinking: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

I do not condemn people for speculating on that which had not yet been decided by the Church in their day and Origen, it is known, viewed the Church and its definitions to be sacred. For him the order of teaching that which is revealed belonged to Christ and then to the Church.

If I were a judge in this case; I doubt there would be enough evidence to condemn the man. I would dismiss it for lack of evidence.

I quit! Uncle! Ally ally all-seen-free! Origen is NOT a good guy. He thinks that even Satan will eventually be saved by the Redemptive death of Christ. Universalism is one of his heresy’s step children.

He may not have been and it may be true but the ‘proof’ documents of what his is alleged to have taught are not extant. Therefore, it depends on whom you want to believe: Sts. Jerome and Athanasius and other notables would take the stand in his defense. You prefer the testimony of others. I don’t prefer one to the other . . . I only want to judge fairly by not condemning a man on what amounts to hearsay.

Dave, I’ve only two curious questions:
1. How can you so easily dismiss the words of Pope Leo the Great regarding the poisoned font that he calls Origen’s heretical preaching?
2. Surely you don’t mean to call his letter to Julian hearsay?

And I guess my only question to you, Ginny would be how can you blow off the words of St. Jerome and St. Athanasius plus the Church’s use of the writings and homilies of Origen? You seem to indicate that St. Leo the Great had settled resources to look at that we didn’t keep in the Vatican somewhere. Also, to be a heretic would require Origen to have refused a correction from the Church which there is certainly no record of. I would say that he, like most of the fathers held with certain errors that since have been defined. But in this particular case the direct writings that are meant to make the case against him are all second hand accounts. That is why I say . . . those accounts cannot be dismissed but they must not prejudice the actual works that we do have from the man which are of great benefit to be read. If fact in the Office of Readings his writings appear along withe those of St. Leo the Great. How can our Church have missed that and raised this man to such stature?

Then the Church is wrong for holding his writings up to us as an expression of Catholic Christian faith . . . not only in the CCC but also in the formation of priests and religious who are mandated to read his writings if they say their Hours as they are told to do. His fingerprints are all over our Church and thus it is difficult for me to harmonize the ‘loser heretic’ idea with the ‘orthodox teacher’ idea so present in our Church usage. I don’t see how both these contending ideas can reside in the same place without some mental and spiritual gyrations taking place somewhere in our history. I’d like to find a way for both to exist side by side but from what I have read on it . . . the first hand writings that he is condemned for are not to be found. So again, I am not disregarding your evidence . . . but only state that it is not first hand. Even a few of his unfinished (thereby unedited writings) contained errors but he can hardly be held accountable for what he did not make public since it was a work in progress so to speak. It is nothing to get upset about and therefore I have nothing to get over, Ginny. I’m only giving a benefit of a doubt when a smoking gun is missing and the critics all seem to have no existing first hand proof from the man himself. I think that is fair. I’m content to let God judge the man and also content to give the same credit to his writings which our Church has given him over the ages.
🙂

I enjoyed the link and diverging into reading about Hart and George McDonald.

Although certain scriptures indicate the reconciliation of all things I am personally convinced of ‘Conditional Immortality’; as only God has immortality, the wages of sin are death and life is a gift to the redeemed.

All that exist and continues to do so only does so through Christ upholding its existence. To think of the Saviour continuing to uphold the existence of the lost for the purpose of their eternal torment is incomprehensible to me.

However the freedom of choice bestowed on humanity, the warnings of hell, perishing and the destruction of body and soul seem to clearly exclude universal salvation as the outcome.

P.S. Ever here of even one miracle at his tomb? If he is such a good guy, why doesn’t the Roman Calendar have a feast day assigned yet? He isn’t Saint Origen. Good luck. Spin doctor him into heaven if it floats your boat, but he ain’t there. Like I said before, lots of folks get duped by the revisionist historical record, but not this gal. God bless. Ginnyfree.

ginny, you need to at least acknowledge there is much historical debate and controversy centering around Origen’s post-mortem condemnation. As well, Balthasar’s book makes the point that when Origen discussed his theories on Hell and the reconciliation of all, he placed it more in question form than as a theory he seemed to actually hold. And other writers post-Origen who were not condemned held to similar views such as St. Gregory Nazianzen.

If it helps, or even if it doesn’t (!), let me just say that Origen is on the basic reading list for all seminary students when looking at the Church Fathers. In my case, I studied Origen at the Beda College in Rome, taught by a Franciscan sister and specialist in Origen who helped us through all the subtleties of philosophy and theology to, in order to spot his orthodox Catholicity. There were certainly contentious areas too, but on balance we were taught to recognize his orthodoxy, and that is the Catholic position, as I understand it.

Yes, I look in regularly but I comment much less these days. I’ve reduced my contributions to all comment threads, particularly religious ones. This is a result of the disillusionment I experienced in the summer concerning Catholic blogging. I also grew a bit tired of being a regular target for the terminally “saved” on this blog. 😉

Good to see you back too. Your spiritual maturity and wisdom complements the bravery you first showed when you arrived on the Damian Thompson blog, all those years ago. Was it five years ago? Before I began a life with donkeys…

Was it really that long ago? Goodness me! I will always appreciate your chivalrous defence of me back then. I have found stepping away from the Internet a good thing, which is why I gingerly dip my toe in here to see how it feels – and why it is good to have you here. I must look in on you and the donks. 🙂 xx

Dear Gareth, not all the ‘terminally saved’ are quite as ‘sick’ as others. Although I count myself among them I have many concerns for their other ‘maladies’ and often exclusivity. I have enjoyed your comments very much.
It’s a pity their frequency has been reduced by the attitudes of some.

P.P.S. I will answer this little question you pose now: “God is love, and perfect love casts out fear, so why would we fear God? ” I’ll be quick and use a Scripture I’m sure you’ve heard before. Fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of Wisdom. Fear of the Lord is also listed as one of the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit and any good Novena prior to Pentecost includes asking for it during the nine days dedicated to this purpose. Now, for my usual question reply to your question, if God tells us clearly that to start growing wise in His eyes, we should begin with fear of Him and our Church notices that folks get forgetful or dismissive of the greatness of the gift holy fear truly is, advises us to pray for all 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit in remedy, why on God’s green earth would you want to persist with an illusion that a “No Fear” lifestyle is compatible with a solid Christian ethic? I’m just sayin’ You don’t have to answer.

Good thoughts. But yes, it is the beginning of wisdom, but as Neo points out (and it is clearer in the Greek) what is being talked about here is ‘awe’ and reverence’ not being scared of a big angry ogre. I always wonder what it is makes people think God is an angry Daddy. Fear makes people smaller and easier to control – my GOd wants us to be as big as we can and come to him because we love him – he even says so in the NT 🙂 xx

Matthew 18:6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 26:24 “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.”

And of course the famous text of St. Paul that told the people that they need work out their salvation in fear and trembling. For being thrown into hell is not our doctrine but that which was revealed to us by God Himself. Christ is not shy about issuing such warnings as I would be remiss to tell my child the (mortal) consequence of murdering or stealing. Fear does not detract from the love of God but the love of God regulates or mediates this emotion.

I doubt that anyone would argue the point that Love is the highest manifestation of God and that all the other attributes are related and regulated by it . . . and this is our case as well. It is not that human emotions are bad, in and of themselves, it is that we misuse them and do not subject them to love. For anger is a powerful motivator of the will of man and has helped men without courage to protect their homes and their loved ones. Such an action is a act of love as well.

Guess Jess could look up the old fashioned way of speaking of these spiritual realities if she found a good talk on HOLY Fear. Here’s a quick help: Psalm 89: 7 GOD is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints. Proverbs 1:7 Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. Job 28:28 And to mortals he said: See: the fear of the Lord is wisdom; and avoiding evil is understanding. How about this one: 2 Cor. 5:11 11 Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others; but we are clearly apparent to God, and I hope we are also apparent to your consciousness. How about this one rihgt around the corner here at WordPress: http://blog.adw.org/2010/02/what-does-it-mean-to-fear-the-lord/ There ya go Jess. Something to help you see another page of two from a place called Catholicism. It is different and hard for you. I know. But it works for me. Hope you get it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

P.S. Jess you should watch the little video at the bottom of Msgr Pope’s talk. It is worth it. You’re worth every bit of it. Stop stopping yourself. The Lamb was slain for you. Do not deny Him and live a place of shadows of things. The whole thing could be yours and then………………………………………………………………

Yours: “I doubt that anyone would argue the point that Love is the highest manifestation of God and that all the other attributes are related and regulated by it . . . and this is our case as well. It is not that human emotions are bad, in and of themselves, it is that we misuse them and do not subject them to love. For anger is a powerful motivator of the will of man and has helped men without courage to protect their homes and their loved ones. Such an action is a act of love as well.”

Mine: The 10 known Divine Attributes can be likened to ten spokes in a wheel radiating out from the Essence of Who God is at His core, His very Being. One Attribute can never be greater than any of the others and the simplest way to understand this is to think of what your wheel would look like if one of the spokes was 4 inches longer than the rest. Your wheel would get deformed and not roll very well. These spokes are and always will be the same as their core: God. God’s Goodness which is where the Love comes from is only one spoke of the wheel. It doesn’t “regulate” the other Attributes. I’m not as adept yet at splain’ all this stuff as I should be. But trust me, it is Simplicity itself which BTW, is another Divine Attribute. To me, once the core which I see in the Beauty of the round Host in the Monstrance, is known a little better by a right knowledge of these 10 spokes radiating out from the source of the wheel it makes Perfect sense. God shows us Who He is in these 10 spokes of the wheel the Divine Attributes. Perfection, Infinity, Simplicity, Unicity, Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Immutability, Immensity, Eternal. One God in Three Divine Persons all containing within themselves all that He is. He is Who is. For whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father, etc. Yeah Dave, I’m your dummy who argues against a Love that dominates over the rest of the spokes in the wheel and leaves out a few factors regarding the working out of the Divine Will as well. Hope this helps a bit. Pray for me. I’m nuts with all this stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.

From a literary perspective, we have terms in our English language such as “terror” and “terrific”. “Terror” instills a sense of suspense that puts one on edge wanting to know more until they say “terrific!” but the two are quite opposite emotions even though both are from the same root word (Latin, terrere). Guess what other two words share a common etymology? Awesome and awful.

The “rule by iron fist” is a good way to “master the puppets” but this would be more like Calvinism.

Flip flop. What’s with all the kisses? XXXXX! It’s flu season round here and I just had a round of immuno suppressing drugs! One sneeze or a wet kiss and I could get very sick. Course rarely does anyone here feel that affectionate towards me. S’alright. Keep you germs to yourself.

Most folks during the history of God’s Revelation to man concerning Himself (OT and NT) were . . . including many a Canonized Saint. Their ‘servile’ fear usually developed into a ‘felial’ fear that did not want to disappoint or presume upon God Who loved them beyond measure. ‘Presumption’ of God (or His love and mercy for our individual soul) is still considered sinful and is responsible for those who develop a heightened love of self above all things. How could a loving God ever abandon or punish my wonderful self?

I would contend that balance is required between our ideas of mercy and justice with love for us and our freedom of choice being the yardstick. Where those who have a theology of the ‘fundamental option’ such rely on the Goodness and Love of God for their salvation without the slightest care to reform themselves as they are, after all, God’s creation and He loved them from the beginning. Such thoughts taken to this extreme would leave a soul to abandon any idea of reforming their lives and choosing rightly to please their Lord. Yes, God is a ‘daddy’ but lest we forget, He is also the King and today we live in a world that has lost all concept of Christ the King and we presume upon God to allow us to serve or not serve Him without consequence. Best serve Him out of love of offending a loving God but it is also quite acceptable to serve Him because He is King of kings and Lord of lords.

Balance and careful consideration might be best for the human soul to keep in mind when straying too far in one direction to the disregard or casting off of the other. A delicate balance might keep one more motivated to serve . . . as by not sparing the rod stops a child from being spoiled and thinking the world revolves about himself.

I think Neo is right here and that we are talking about awe and reverence, not being scared. Do frightened people really love, or do they just say what the big bully wants to hear?

Jesus is a special king. Born in a stable, not in purple, worked at the lathe and the plane, a servant not being served. He died for love of us. This servant-king is not like the kings of this world, or so it seems to me. I agree that if we love him we fear to offend him, so perhaps we’re really much on the same page 🙂 xx

I think we’re missing something here. In English we define the verb to fear primarily as:

“be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening.
“he said he didn’t care about life so why should he fear death?”
synonyms: be afraid of, be fearful of, be scared of, be apprehensive of, dread, live in fear of, be terrified of;

In my particular case, I don’t fear death, but I do fear pain, and that is usually a precursor.

That’s not really an appropriate way to regard God, in my opinion. He did, after all, tell us to call Him “Abba” which is usually translated as “Father”, but as we know, and Jess has repeatedly stated, really more akin to “Daddy”. Very few of us actually fear our daddies, we fear to disappoint them, and fear the consequences of doing so, but we shouldn’t actually fear them, per se.

But the archaic definition of fear, and if we are using the KJV of the Bible (or its contemporaries), likely the appropriate one is different:

Which I think is kind of what Dave is saying above. We are not going to come to love God through fear, but through reverence, awe, and respect, we are likely to. In fact, in just the way Jess says here:

” I always feel better after confession, but that’s because I’ve said sorry to my Father, and I am sorry, not because I am scared of him, but because it hurts me to hurt him. That, I think is what true love does.”

It might also be of meditative use to think about what is in and what is not in Heaven and Hell.

On earth we have love, goodness, beauty, truth etc. dwelling with the corruption of these and the opposites: hate, badness, ugliness and lies.

In Heaven we have the fullness of the Good without the corruption. In hell, we have the Corruption without the Good or Truth to be corrupted. One is completion or a fullness . . . and the latter is an impossible frustration where there is nothing to left of corrupt or distort as it is already emptied of such values. So all that remain is hell is hate, badness, ugliness and lies.

If that is what we wanted in life . . . then you will find the frustration of having none of the Good to corrupt and you will have the perfection of what your bankupt ideology leads. You choose it . . . you get it.

My thought is that what motivates sin is a good (usually to self): i.e. pleasure, comfort, authority, praise, esteem etc.

All of these are goods but distorted to the benefit only for oneself. Left without the motivation but only the fruits of such a motivation would clearly be hell. In other words without the Presence of God which we tend to forget here on earth, there is nothng of worth which needs distorting . . . as it is already maddeningly so.

Indeed so. There is nothing less satisfying, at least in my experience, than doing things that benefit only oneself, the joy is in doing things for others, even things (like a job) that benefit us, as well. I suppose that is sort of what Luther was getting in his definition of vocation. But given the time of the year, it really is “better to give than receive”!

Thanks. For us of an electrical bent it is being an undischarged capacitor. It seems to me that love (undistorted) given to us by God is to pass through us to others and back to Him as in a conduit. But ridding ourselves of the conduit aspect we are useless storage containers of the most precious power on earth: love.

Oh this is gonna be fun! But I gotta leave for Church in about 4 minutes. Oh dear. Hell is a favorite topic of mine. But Fave just read my mind. Must be close to being on the same page: Maddeningly. Oh yippe! I just heard a dynamite sermon (might have been Audio Sancto) on Hell and in it he goes to lengths to describe the state of mind one might find in Hell: total insanity. Inanes. There is nothing sane about Hell, either in its human residents nor their overlords, the demons. which towards the end of the sermon he connects beautifully to a pastoral hint of a special concern for those who have real mental health issues and see little wrong with the two – Hell and being nuts. Hand in glove. They go together and this is why he thinks those who are partly insane seldom fear Hell, they are simply subconsciously resigned to their fate and are living in the state of mind they will have for eternity. It was a good sermon I think. Maybe I’ll dig it up. It will surely get dysd here I’m sure. Oh well. Forgive me. I mean well. God bless. Ginnyfree.

ive been listening to Imaculate Heart Radio. Its well worth the time when it says stuff like this…..the announcer said……”the catholic church is gods gift to mankind” Ive never laughed so regularly and so hard that I split a side and bust a gut laughing so hard.

God is love, perfect love casts out feat. Seems pretty orthodox to me – are you disinclined to believe it?

I don’t think anyone said we shouldn’t repent. But I’m missing that bit in the NT where Jesus says be afraid, be very afraid, he keeps talking about love. You seem to find that hard, but look at your lovely baby, bet you are loved to bits there and you love to bits back – if we sinners can feel that, imagine how God feels about us – and we get part there?

It is lovely that you are still here, and anything in the past is forgotten and was forgiven a long time ago. I thought that whilst we were allowed to ‘hope’ that everyone might be saved, we could not hold it to be so as an article of faith? God alone knows, and I can’t for a second imagine how Hitler or Stalin (or my former husband 🙂 ) can be saved!

Please pray for me. I’m about to start on the lights. I’ve got the fuses, the flashers, the extension cords and the command strips all ready. I hate this part. My dad and my hubby always did the lights. I put it off for as long as decently possible. I cannot delay one day longer. Grrrrrr………………

Balderdash. One string up and several that won’t lite. There are loose bulbs. It takes hours to do these silly lights. I have customized the ones for the tree. One year I was feeling braver and had less arthritis in my hands. Sooooooooooooo………I decided to combine colors on the string so only the colors I wanted would be on my tree. Red, white, purple. Yeppers. It went like this: pop two of three bulbs off one set and replace with one red, then one purple till the whole strand went red, purple, white, red, purple, white. red, purple, white. I was half way done and my dumb daughter said, “Mom, why didn’t you just twist all three strands together. No one would know.” She almost got grounded until New Year’s for that comment. Right now, I think I’m calling it quits till tomorrow. Grrrrrrrrr……………..

The last thing you said QVO is actually part of the reason we will rejoice to see God’s Justice carried out on the Last Day, not because of any fault or in a sinful way for we will have passed His Justice to receive His Mercy and will therefore be perfectly justified in Christ Jesus, yet we will rejoice to see these things pass. It is part of the Heavenly bliss to see this happen to the reprobate and the devils, simply because it is the Divine Will being fulfilled. Yes, even hellfire and those in it glorifies God. Those devils who feel were given their will:eternity without divinity and those who follow their example will also receive the same. Hell is really a choice. Choose Christ. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Bit of a monster this God you believe in. If an earthly ruler created people knowing they were bound for eternal torment we would not worship him we’d condemn him. If God is omnipotent, how can hell not be his fault? Thank God my God is not the one you believe in.

My mother, a lapsed Catholic, hated god, the god she believed in and rightly so. Before her death, remaining a Catholic, she came to faith in God who was very unlike what she had imagined most of her life.

Jesus suffered, died and was buried and He descended into Hell……………………………………………………….just not that of the damned. Jess, God doesn’t send folks to Hell, their sins do. He isn’t mean and it is not fair to say that those of us who believe in Hell are making God into some sort of ogre. He sent His only begotten Son to die for you because your sins cost that much. If you reject His Mercy by claiming it is unjust to have to repent of your sins and beg Him for Mercy, then He cannot undo the damage they’ve caused to your soul. You are as bound to your sins and you keep yourself. He is not to blame for the souls of the damned being where they are. Read Matthew 25:31-41: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world………….41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” If you bother to read the entire passage you will not see a clause in it that says “but as for those who I love, none of this applies. They have a “Get Into Heaven Free” card dispensed at the hour of their personal salvation, so ignore whatever else I have said to the contrary.”

Hell is real. You avoid by repentance and penance. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I agree that it is people’s’ rejection of God which banish them from his presence. I do, however, think that you are working with a medieval idea of hell. I think you have an idea that God is not omnipotent. You said there he could not do something; my God is omnipotent. If there is something your God cannot do, then he is not God. If you bothered to do a word study of the Greek and Hebrew words the English translate as ‘hell’ you might find some interesting things.

If we avoid hell by repentance and penance, we earn our salvation. Yet Paul tells us we cannot earn our salvation. I’m not sure that you have thought this through. On what you have said, we can earn salvation and there’s something God can’t do. That’s about a B grade in my theology class.

Hi Jess – I don’t think Ginny means we ‘earn’ our salvation; simply that we have to repent of our sins. Jesus says “Repent and be saved”, ergo we can’t be saved without repentance. What happens to those who don’t/ won’t repent?
Of course God is omnipotent – but His love for us is so great that He will never override our free will. What is love if it is forced or coerced? It has to be a free act. To repent is an act of love; God only requires the tiniest turning towards Him and then, as St Teresa of Avila tells, us we will never outdo His generosity in His forgiveness. But we are sinners and we have to turn away from sin…

Well, FPF, having beaten around this mulberry bush more than once with others, it really boils down to a rejection of God. If He is described in terms that aren’t pleasing, easily accepted, non-restrictive, permissive, etc., then He is no longer an acceptable god. Jess has stated more than once that she cannot tolerate a certain type of god and if we insist on emphasizing some of His features that aren’t appealing to her, then she simply rejects that off hand. He must conform to her image of Him and those of us who show her a different picture are to her, simply wrong. It is a box that holds the thoughts in their place and thinking outside of it gets too messy. No one wants their pretty Christmas mared with the thought that they may not be as saved as they imagine themselves to be. But one mortal sin is all it takes. Then Hell.

The devil laughs when a soul says this – “Well, I don’t believe that.” If they don’t believe they are in sin, they will never ask to be forgiven of it. The devil wins.

Hell is real. It is eternal. It isn’t pleasant. It can be avoided. If doing anything to avoid it is seen as a “work,” that is useless to save oneself, then one in pretty much too lazy to even try to live a good Christian life. No, if a person is relying on a particular Biblical passage regarding useless works, they need to put the verse back into context and realize its true meaning: that the works of the Mosaic laws regarding how to live a kosher life and the need for circumcision, etc. have been done away with under the New Covenant and so those works, all 613 of ’em, are useless to save one. Got get the whole story or you’re stuck. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I think it would be quite helpful if I explained where you are misrepresenting what I have written.

To me you overdo the God of punishment stuff; you are not alone in that, but it is unfortunate as it gives the impression to many that Christians believe God is a sort of abusive parent. Let’s be honest, if a Father punished his child in the way you suggest God punishes us, I think the courts would soon be locking said father away for a long time. It is that overemphasis which I reject. You present an exaggerated picture, and it is that I reject because it is not the God I experience; if you experience that punishing God, I am sorry for you, as I am if you obey his laws only because you are a scardy cat. I obey because I love him, and I love him because he loves me. I would hope you do the same? No?

Yes, it takes only one mortal sin to separate oneself from God, but it takes only one act of repentance to be back with him; you talk a lot about hell, which is a puzzle. Hell is a much less clear concept than you seem to believe. I will bow to your knowledge of what the devil thinks and says – I have nothing to do with him, and if you know so much about him, I am puzzled as to how – or are you saying you think this is how it must be for him? I’m not clear which.

Yes, works are, indeed, not necessary, and that was my point in saying that I did not agree with your implication that one needed to do things in order to be saved. All you need is to turn to Christ – as simple as that. All thes rest of it is man-made ordinances, which some find necessary, but which will not bring you salvation.

I’m sure you’ll do a bang-up job, my friend. Set them on a course toward the narrow gate (the straight and narrow) and the rest is up to them and their openness to God’s Grace. It is a wonderful thing that you do and I miss teaching those who seem to have been lost and just found a sign of hope that changes their whole paradigm. We need to keep them in our prayers as it is so easy to fall off the horse the first time it rears up. 🙂 xx

In terms of that sermon, some good things there. My one difficulty here is with the idea that our eternal souls burn in hell. I can’t find any reference in Scripture to this. The references to Gehenna are all to that valley – but what was there was dead, and I can’t see Jesus says anyone there is alive? It’s this that I have trouble with. The references in the Greek and Hebrew are to Sheol and Gehenna, but Sheol, or Hades is where the dead are, not where anyone lives, and the same seems true of Gehenna – or is this wrong?

28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.[a]

Of course the above quote could be inerpreted as an annihilation. But then we have this:

Mark 9

47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell,[p] 48 where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.

That’s helpful, but it isn’t how the Hebrews defined Sheol – on all the OT references I can’t find one where people are alive in Sheol – it is a place where they are dead.

The Matthean reference is to God destroying us body and soul, not to anyone burning anywhere whilst being alive. Gehenna is an interesting one, and was, as you know, a real place, but no one there was alive, they were all dead. It is this being dead and alive and burning I am not finding. I am working on a post on this perhaps for tomorrow.

But then, dear friend, it took a long time for the Jews to believe in life after death . . . even in Jesus’ day some did and some didn’t. Their posterity is how they perceived their ‘living on’ in the world.

I think that the above quote mentioned, along with others, is how Christianity came to understand both heaven and hell. It was a clearer view of what the OT Jew saw.

I think one has to be very brave and careful when bucking the scholarship of these past 2000 years on this issue. If you are right . . . it would seem better (to our mortal perspective). But if wrong, which I think it is, we have a loving God trying His best to dissuade us from taking this life lightly. What we do in life has everlasting consequences.

I am not brave, I am just trying to wrestle with the Greek and the Hebrew and to see how far we have brought into it our own reading of what we think it ought to mean. Goodness me, it’s a puzzle for sure!

My problem, I think, is with the idea of people being alive forever and burning – Fatima apart, I really am not seeing it – I will finish the piece in the morning my time – C says I can have that slot – bless him – he says he’ll call it ‘heresy corner’ 😦

Aye, I was thinking of one myself that isn’t suitable: we just had a suicide of a 16 year old hispanic in my wife’s Church. At this time of year it is always sad to know that there are people who grieve at these times because it reminds them of the tragedies of their life. It is so sad to know that while the rest of Christianity rejoices, they mourn. So I doubt I will write anything of that here.

Speaking of which . . . it was a joy to enter into discussion with you this morning (my time) but my sweet dog has been very patient with me in regards to his walk (bless him). I think I best get him out for his first walk before it rains again. 🙂

Indeed. I am boning up on what the saints have experienced in prayerful visions and in dreams. Sadly, so far, they all seem rather much alike . . . a place of eternal torment. To be continued . . . 🙂 xx

If placed in the context of the parable by Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 the obvious seems the best solution to me and also to the Church it seems. I will probably bring that up tomorrow with some commentary to go along with it.

I do not read Greek but use the tools, I would be interested in others opinion on the following:

I have read that the adjective aionios (everlasting) when used in Greek with nouns of action refer to the result of the act, not the process.

Everlasting punishment is comparable to everlasting redemption we are not being forever redeemed, we were redeemed once for all by Christ with eternal results. In the same way the lost will not be passing through the process of punishment forever but will suffer the second death once with eternal results.

On the other hand the noun ‘life’ is not a noun of action, but a noun expressing a state and the gift of God’s life imparted to us is eternal.

That is certainly what I have been taught. To think it is happening all the time is the same mistake some Protestants make about the Mass when they say Jesus is always being sacrificed – same misreading.

Such a lovely sentiment. The idea of heaven as a place where the smug and self-satisfied can be in eternal bliss ignoring billions burning forever. Is that really your idea of God’s idea of heaven, or just your own fantasy?

And we read this as Adam and Eve having been given sanctifying grace which would guarantee their eternal life . . . so there would have been no mortal death. So we now surely do have mortal death. As to the state of the eviternal soul . . . we contend that it was made immortal and will remain immortal. Why didn’t Satan die a mortal death . . . because He is pure spirit.

That sounds like a bad life to me not a death and incompatible with many scriptures about perishing and destruction.

I am aware your view is the traditional view and it is also the majority view amongst evangelicals but conditional immortality is gaining ground among them – some years ago there was an article in the British press about the Church of England – to the effect of hell not lasting forever I’m not sure what their official position is now or if they have one.

Personally consider these future things to be doctrines there was no need to be definitive about, although I come down heavily on the conditional Immortality side.

Eternal life in God seems to now be expressed as an eternal moment as temporal (worldly time) will not exist. I could certainly see perhaps a compromised theology that says the same regarding eternity in hell being an eternal moment. But that still leaves the soul aware and in torment for eternity. First death would be the separation of the body from the soul. The second death is the separation of the soul from God: not annihilation.

Actually Rob there is another level in which to refer to the 2nd death. For those of us who have been Baptised, the second death is actual physical death the first death being that which we died upon entering the waters of Baptism. It gets complicated fast and I don’t want to throw monkey wrenches into the works just yet. I don’t fear death having died to life with Christ in my Baptism for death to me is life with Christ Jesus. The second death of Revelation will do me no harm. It is a bold thing to think and I do often. I will not escape judgement that is certain, but I do go to Confession each Saturday and keep my garments washed in the Blood of Lamb available to me in the Sacrament of Penance. I will be like those others you’ve read about in Revelation that wave their palm branches having made my robes white again in His Blood. it is very true. Hope to see you there. Spend more time with Msgr. Pope. the guy whose article I linked you to where that cute little video was. Go to Mass and just watch. Sit and see if the book of Revelation doesn’t show itself to you there. God bless. Ginnyfree.

‘It gets complicated’ – as does anything needed by men to keep the people in subjection. How complicated is Christ’s message? Occam’s razor rules – the simpler explanation is usually the right one. Your church managed to invent so many rules to keep you all in fear, and even today, you fall for it.

Hell, Gehenna, Sheol, the Netherworld, Hades, etc. Could keep children confused for at least two semesters, unless of course they actually pick up a book and read a little something. Yummy! Minced up words for a mincemeat pie. A real holiday treat. My granmom used to make it from scratch. Now you’re lucky to get pickled raisin glop in a jar on the grocery shelf inside a soggy pie crust right outta a box or something. I miss her pies. She was raised as an Amish gal on a huge farm and when she got her year of freedom to sow her wild oats, she met and fell in love with a Baptist, by granpop. They shunned her for a while, but lightened up after about 20 years. Ummmmm……..is that a bit too long to shun someone for leaving one denomination for the other? God bless. Ginnyfree.

Again, the Greek is not, I think, well translated – the two words used ‘iskolasis’ and ‘aai-ōnios’ could also mean ‘corrected for the whole of this age’ – which again, is not a reference to anyone being in fire for ever.

I’m just finishing off a word study on this. I believe in hell, of course, but I am not finding this place where people are alive for ever in torment – I find it in the English translations, but not in the Greek.

Another interesting thought. The problem I think is that the first person I can find who uses this idea is Tertullian, and so it is certainly in the Roman thinking – but was that then used to reinterpret the Greek? Jerome would not have been invulnerable to that? It’s a puzzle.

I can find only 14 references to Gehenna in the NSAB, and indeed in any translation other than the KJV. I wonder what is in the Vulgate – I haven’t seen a word study. As far as I can see, the difficulty is that English has one word where Scripture uses at least four! I may end up regretting starting this, but if I put it all together, you may have time to show me where I am erring – and as you know, I am always happy being put right 🙂 xx

Thank you. Of course, let me emphasise, I do believe in hell, but from what I am reading it seems as though it is where were are indeed separated from God forever because we are destroyed utterly, body and soul. That is very terrible when you think we are made for eternal life. I will try to finish it tonight and put it up tomorrow. 🙂 xx

Just another thought . . . though one might need to be Roman Catholic to fully grasp the importance of this to us. The vision of hell was purportedly granted to the children seers of Fatima and I believe to a few others as well: something I’m sure Our Lady would not have shown a child for the fright of it could almost kill us from their report. I believe, as the Church has taught, that these visions are ‘worthy of our belief.’

Annihilation won’t have creatures or souls writhing in pain as seen by these, rather consistent, visions of the saints. I may get an opportunity tomorrow to produce a few more or a link or two that will detail their visisons.

Hell (the dammed portion of sheol apart from Abraham’s bosom) exists now as in Jesus account of the rich man and Lazarus just as may have been seen in the visions of hell you speak of – but death and hell are scheduled to be cast into the Lake of Fire – which is the second death.

By the rejection of Christ . . . I feel this has already happened: hell is a lake of fire as witnessed by many mystics. The agony of mortal death being experienced a second time eternally perhaps? I have written some of my thought on this for Jessica tomorrow. Unfortunately they are too long for a comment box. I may turn it into a PDF and put it in my website so that I can link it to her. I’ll see what she wants to do.

Jess, this may help: for us Catholics there are 12 de fide things about the last things. Here is a list. Note those pertaining to Hell.
1 In the present order of salvation, death is a punishment for sin.
2 All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death.
3 The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven.
4 The bliss of Heaven lasts for all eternity.
5 The degree of perfection of the Beatific Vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merit.
6 The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.
7 The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity.
8 The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter purgatory.
9 At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgement.
10 All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies.
11 The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth.
12 Christ, on His second coming, will judge all men.

Of course you can take this to be just another of our endless lists of silly rules that mean nothing. That is fine, but try to understand what Catholics believe. I personally think endeavors into “speculative” theology are dangerous and anything that may sparkle and catch the eye is likely fool’s gold. God bless. Ginnyfree.

It is the RCC view – not, however, founded on scripture. The wages of sin is death. Now, if your church is right, should St Paul not at least warned us all about this hell you have invented? He didn’t, because it hadn’t then been invented. Not a single Jew of the second temple era would have thought about Gehenna as you claim they must have. Best of luck with that man-made stuff. The Good News is you are saved, because God loves you.

You note a difference? Our readers will. Jesus brings you eternal life and I rejoice; you think he may bring me eternal torment and you say I’ll know about it when I get there. One of those reactions is of a God of love. I leave readers to make their minds up which 🙂

Hey Jess, could any of this make any sense to you? What was it you said the St. Paul said nothing about? Am I missing something? 1 Cor. 15:12-19

12 But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.

Oh dear. Oh my. You may be wrong about a few things Jess. Or is it me? God bless. Ginnyfree.

If you could kindly point me to where I said there was no resurrection of the dead, your comments might make some sense to me. The reward to the faithful ids life eternal, to the faithless, death – Paul said it. Show me where Paul talks about a hell where people burn.

You have quite misunderstood me. The faithful rise to eternal life, the faithless suffer the second death and do not exist. This is in line with Jewish beliefs, Paul was a Jew. He knew nothing of, and says nothing of, the hell you believe in. I think if you stopped a thought about what I am writing, and even read it, you might save yourself some time.

Jess, the folks at the Watchtower share your un-belief: “You have quite misunderstood me. The faithful rise to eternal life, the faithless suffer the second death and do not exist. ” You do not believe in life after death. No one ceases to exist after death. It is the position of those who publish at the Watchtower. Are you as Jehovah’s Witness? Is that why you called this place All Along The Watchtower? Or is that a coincidence? Just curious. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I have read that the adjective aionios (everlasting) when used in Greek with nouns of action refer to the result of the act, not the process. On the other hand the noun ‘life’ is not a noun of action, but a noun expressing a state and the gift of God’s life imparted to us is eternal. The opinion of a Greek scholar would be helpful here.

My understanding is that Sheol / Hades is the place of the dead – where all went in OT times. There are various views on the place of NT believers ‘asleep in Christ’.
Gehenna was the valley where the Jerusalem’s rubbish was burnt up and destroyed and this is referred to in Revelation as the lake of fire an image of the second death, the cessation of existence of the unrighteous. The consequences of this fire are eternal but not the fire (a metaphor for utter and complete destruction) or the suffering in it.

Jude 7 makes this plain. “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in a similar manner, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality … are exhibited as an example, in undergoing punishment in eternal fire.” Jude 7

However Sodom and Gomorrah are not burning today, yet the Bible says they suffered eternal fire. It means that these cities were completely burned, until there was nothing left the consequences of the fire are eternal.

Even Jn. 3:16 presents the options available to man as either eternal life or perishing – eternal conscious torment is not one of the options.

I understand that the Church of England made a pronouncement about the temporary nature of hell which made the newspapers some years ago.

Coincidentally, I just watched this homily by Fr Longenecker. Yes – it is straightforward teaching which, as Christians, we are bound to believe. (Though I think Longenecker writes better than he speaks.) God is not a sadist, wanting to torment us; nor is He a kindly Fr Christmas, forgiving us our sins whatever our state of soul. After recommending CS Lewis’s The Great Divorce I now recommend Georges’ Bernanos’s The Diary of a Country Priest. It is a superb novel all about the choices people make, how they – we – (necessarily) suffer for – our/ their bad choices and how God constantly offers His grace in this life to even those (like the Countess in the novel) who hate Him. Bernanos understands the mystery of the human soul like no other writer. I am reminded of a phrase by Graham Greene in Brighton Rock: The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God.”

Yes, I agree that Fr. Longenecker writes better than he speaks . . . but he’s not too bad at that either. I envy your being able to have him as your pastor. My wife was able to get him to come here one year on Divine Mercy Sunday and then to participate in a question and answer talk. He was quite good and a joy to speak with . . . a throwback to the older priests that I knew who have now gone to their rewards.

Thank you for the heads-up on these books though my eyesight makes reading a tiring chore these days . . . not as fun as it used to be. 🙂

Well Jess, I can only say you’ve place quite a few words into my mouth that simply aren’t there.

You are the one who keeps calling God bad names. Here is a small sampling: ” you overdo the God of punishment………God is a sort of abusive parent…………. the courts would soon be locking said father away…………God is a Father who is happy to see his child suffer for ever…………….. not being scared of a big angry ogre. I always wonder what it is makes people think God is an angry Daddy………… Do frightened people really love, or do they just say what the big bully wants to hear?……………Bit of a monster this God you believe in…………If an earthly ruler created people knowing they were bound for eternal torment we would not worship him we’d condemn him………… If God is omnipotent, how can hell not be his fault?……………..The idea that he has a list of rules, that your church has them, and if anyone infringes just one, they are in hell, is a dreadful idea – but it is an idea of men…………..”

These are all YOUR words, yet you are claiming this is what I have said. Houze that workin’?

Hell is not the invention of men, but the result of the fall of the angels. It existed before Adam was made by God.

I shouldn’t listen to the hol=mily Dave provided the link to. It will affirm several things I and QVO have said as well as a few others. You won’t like it. God bless. Ginnyfree

Ginny’s post reminds me of a true story about a priest, Fr Patrick Burke, who was once driving a stroppy teenager to a Catholic event. She was grumbling and protesting as teenagers do, saying “What’s the point of going?” etc. Fr Burke, hurtling down the MI at the time, banged the steering wheel and said “Life is short! Hell is real! That’s why!” This story was later related to me by the erstwhile stroppy teenager who grew up to become a nun and who started a new religious Order, the Sisters of Life, based in Glasgow…

You seem, to me, to attribute to God what is best attributed to man. He gave us free will, he gave us the Prophets and finally Jesus. The choice is our choice. God is, as you say, beyond out thoughts. The idea that he has a list of rules, that your church has them, and if anyone infringes just one, they are in hell, is a dreadful idea – but it is an idea of men.

What is the point of God giving us a brain if we are not going to use it. God says forgive your enemies and yet he consigns his to burn in hell? Your God may be a hypocrite, but I don’t think God is. I am put off by the silliness that insists that one English word can satisfactorily translate three Greek ones and one Hebrew one. What frightens me is the narrowness of a mind which cannot be opened by the love of God. Which part of God is love do you begin to get?

None of which has anything to do with a lake of fire where people burn. Orthodoxy I am fine with, it is this medieval Catholicism you are trapped in which is disturbing. The Eastern Orthodox do not hold with such stuff – but then they did not adopt a Roman mindset.

I see you are not able to answer my Biblical quotations. Jesus and Paul talk about God destroying the sinner, you deny their words and call me unorthodox – you jest sir! Now try engaging and less name-calling – or can’t you answer me without it.

Your “position” is then espoused by you? I thought you were merely speculating.

Dante has a place in Hell in is poem occupied by those who spent their days speculating. I’ve sometimes wondered why this particular sin was mentioned by him. Perhaps you could give his poem another look thru. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Your church speculates, you call it doctrine, others speculate you call it heresy. The difference is that the Church used to be OK with speculative thinking, but then got all frightened and started burning people – worked out well that one.

That cannot be true. Nowhere in the initial deposit of faith does it say there is a Pope and he lives in Rome and that in some things he says he will be infallible – these are all developments. What you claim is implicit about these things are denied by the Orthodox, who have changed far less than your church has changed. Carry on convincing yourself and for goodness sake, don’t think for yourself – that’s not why God gave you a brain.

For man dies, not by his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, ‘Thou shalt not leave My soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.’ For it beseemed that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of the Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him.
‘Against the Arians’ chapter 29

Not as a proof of anything, my dear Jess but to put forward a simple observation, I would note that all types of scholarly pursuits (science especially) begins with speculations of some very smart people with varying ideas and speculations on their take on the information that is available to them. Now in time, it seems that some things have not reached ‘settled science’ whilst others, after examination by authorities within the field of study have come to final conclusions upon which other science is built. It seems to me that pointing to opposing theories does not do anything other than what it purports to express: that the ideas were not self-apparent during their day. But once the authority has decided that enough infomation was available to define the controversy and settle the dispute, it makes a definitive decision and pronounces an authoritative conclusion. This removes any doubt and allows us to move forward. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit is not leading us forward but around in circles. You may not believe that the Catholic Church possesses this authority and folks can disagree on the authoritative body for scientific facts, but it is not unusual . . . for as you said in my post, that you saw it as something similar to the construction of the creed. You did accept that authority but deny those proclamtions on other controversial issues. So this exchange between QVO and Ginny or myself can never be settled by rehashing or replowing a field that was plowed by Church long ago and planted in that field which has and continues to produce good fruit. It will not be reversed or expunged due to our reiterating the arguments that were lost in the end. And since the men were sons of the Church, my guess is that once this decision was reached by the Church, neither Athanasius or Irenaeus would have held those positions into the face of the Church teaching. As I say, it is just an observation but I salute all Catholics who hold to the de fide teaching and see the opeining of settled disputes unhelpful . . . except in the realm of showing us the types of thinking and depth of exploration these fathers were examining. 🙂

As ever, dear friend, you offer an object lesson in how to conduct apologetics. You are quite correct. What I would say is that this subject has not been discussed by any ecumenical council and there are no ex cathedra Papal comments on it either. It may well be time to revisit it.

Sadly, the lists that I have of Defined Dogma do not give me the citations for belief . . . and I have not tried to research it to any extent. Perhaps another Catholic here has already done so. However, every list I have seen and there are some of differing lengths, but the most popular and all the others have the following teachings as Dogma: [#’s 6 and 7 are always listed]

XVI. The Last Things
1.In the present order of salvation, death is a punishment for sin.
2. All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death.
3. The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven.
4. The bliss of Heaven lasts for all eternity.
5. The degree of perfection of the Beatific Vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merit.
6. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.
7. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity.
8. The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter purgatory.
9. At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgement.
10, All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies.
11. The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth.
12. Christ, on His second coming, will judge all men.

I may well be wrong, but I do not think those have been defined by an ecumenical council. Trent is recognised as such only by your own Church, but I don’t know Trent well enough to know if they’re there. I am sure that you are right, but wonder whether the teaching here is settled for all time?

If not, I would say that a tradition as long as this one has persisted would be doctrine even if only made so by the sensum fidei; also considered to be infallible (a teaching revealed by the Holy Spirit to the people of God).

1. The First Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 at the very least alludes to the fact that folks then living in AD 1215 would be in hell. This was the opening statement of the Council and its “Profession of the Faith.” The implication is that people from every generation would finally be eternally separated from God, not just people from the 13th century. But, at the very least, for the strict interpreter of the words of the Council, it seems inescapable that the Council taught souls are in hell now:

“Indeed, having suffered and died on the wood of the cross for the salvation of the human race, he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, (Latin text reads quae nunc gestant—which they are now bearing or wearing) so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.”

JPII and the Catechism also made statements that seem to put forward at the very least the sensus ecclesia.

I’ve been meditating on this. If, as I think we believe, we are made to know God and to love God and to be with him, then the message of salvation is that it is the state of coming to this destiny. But I am not seeing anywhere where we are taught there is another eternal destiny. The alternative to being with Him eternally is surely non-being, not eternal being elsewhere? Does that make any sense?

It does indeed. I think of it as having the freedom and simplicity of God Himself.

God’s thinking on Himself was so real and full of love that the viewer (Christ) became a person and that their love for one another spirated a third Person. That said, what is a bad spirit but one that (like God) looks at itself instead of the preexistent God and loves it? That would indicate the danger of God creating creatures with spirit souls. They have the freedom to either gaze upon God and be enveloped in that love or to gaze upon themselves and love only themselves. And with the composite man (both corruptible material body and incorruptible spirit/soul) the love of a man for himself may even be more base than the angels; as the spirit soul may serve the body (the baser par of man) rather than the spirit.

I’m not good at this metaphysical stuff but it gets complicated real quick. That is why I stick with the Church. 🙂

I can understand that all too well. But I am puzzled about the idea of an alternative eternal destiny/ It does seem to me that we are either with God forever, or we aren’t. I don’t see why we need to posit a place of eternal torment? But there we go – we’ve been here before 🙂 I am trying to do a piece on the background to this from the Anglican point of view – let’s see how I get on 🙂 xx

Isn’t life without love potentially, at least, everlasting torment? For even love persists when corrupted in my example but the torment is that very corruption and lack of Truth. It is chosen not, not applied.

I think I have isolated the problem down to our destiny being to know God, to love him and to be with him. There isn’t a destiny which says we are eternally tormented. Oh well, back to the drawing board 🙂 xx

Indeed so . . . as postulated by the Church. Our souls have nature which is not fulfilled if we do not attain that which is ALL GOOD or or ALL LOVING. Deprived of this Goodness that only resides in God, the soul is in torment.

The idea of being denied eternal felicity is a horrible one, but I can see how if that’s someone’s choice, then they undergo a death which means no further existence. It is that notion of someone in torment for ever and for ever and with no chance of redemption which I, and many I talk to, find horrific. As one young woman put it to me recently: “This God, a bit of a cruel narcissist isn’t he? If you don’t worship him you will be in torment for ever – why would I even want to go there?” As a problem in practical evangelisation, I come across this a lot. Maybe it is just here and not in the US?

I would suppose that is how many people came to think of Original Sin not being an actual Truth. They cannot imagine that the loss of sanctifying grace of men (as part of the nature of a man’s soul) could be revoked from all future souls. But we believe it.

I need only think about the covenants of God with Chosen People. He remains constant and faithful but the people did not. Those who did remain in the covenant, and those who make the choice not to . . . are not. It is binary as is our destiny.

I’ve no problem with that, it is the idea that forever some people will be in torment. It seems more in line with the idea of a loving God that those who reject him cease to exist, having rejected their destiny. It is the notion that there is another destiny – eternal torment, for which we are also made. It does seem to me very medieval in its conception.

Eternal happines is what we were made for: we are not made for eternal torment. The Covenant with the Jewish People was of the same thing: “I am yours, and you are mine.” But it does not presuppose that persons can or must accept it. There is a falling out; a disorder about them. This disorder is usually a type of pride or self love.

The soul condemns itself by refusing to serve God . . . and usually choosing the basest element of man (the body) to serve. Or at least that is how I see it. I don’t see God condemning . . . I see human souls choosing even after the consequences of both paths have been thoroughly explained. We can believe or refuse to believe. We can serve God or serve ourselves.

True – but according to that link from gnny, God takes satisfaction in souls and bodies being tormented forever. That is just a sic thing to believe. I am sorry for ginny, but as evangelists go, Bosco should be hiring her.

It depends on again on how we think of satisfaction in God rather than man. God is simplicity as stated before. He is entirely happy in Himself for all eternity and satisfied in all eternity. His Justice of allowing us to choose Him or us is satisfied in that sense. He has offered no less than Himself to His creation so that they might share in His eternal happiness. That they do not will not be something that disturbs His Beatitude.

I am having real trouble with St Catherine. Do you really believe this:
“You see, then, that he is my [God’s] Minister to torture the damned in Hell,” or this:
“The Devil, dearest daughter, is the instrument of My Justice to torment the souls who have miserably offended Me.”

St. Catherine was not an adept at metaphysics . . . but of spirituality. It obviously seemed righteous to her that our sins be punished and that God allow Satan to tempt and/or seduce to his side the souls who have done evil. So our last two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer.

To reiterate a point regarding saints. I have read now five saints who had visions of hell shown them by Jesus or Our Lady in their ecstasies. All of them are strikingly similar. I have not yet run across a single image of hell by a recognized saint that saw it empty or corrected the record by telling them that their souls were annihilated. Their visions are one-sided . . . and they are in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

Like many female saints of that era, it seems she suffered from eating disorders and something approaching masochism – these visions seem to me symptoms of that. I can only say that the God they worship is not one I can imagine anyone even respecting.

You make people, and then you make the devil to torment those who offend you? Sounds like what a young female hysteric would take away from her life at that time, but not very like a God whom we are told in ‘love’. That sort of love – who would want it and why?

Jess it true that God did make Lucifer (knowing how he would turn out) and he was made to be good and rest in God’s beatitude. But one can say that what he became was of his own doing but that it did not stop God from offering him a choice. In a metaphoric way God has used Satan to test us and provide the choices we know that lie before us: temporal pleasures of the flesh for instance or the eternal joys of heaven.

As to St. Catherine, I think her visions no worse than that described by Jesus in the parable of Dives and Lazarus . . . or in other quotations which many are quick to re-translate or to give an alternate meaning.

I suppose it is hard for some people to see the supernatural realm in this way. But order is consistent and a perversion of order is disorderliness and it is ugly. It reminds one of those who blame God for bad things that happen . . . or for the fact that sin exists.

Eternity of soul, though, of which we speak is even written the science of the day. For even the cosmos is now accepted to be made of both material and energy and remains constant. It may change from one to the other but it does not go into nothingness: created from nothingness by God but now living out its existence. So although it may in itself be a metaphor it is nice to see the fingerprints of God in all things. 🙂

My problem here is that St C’s visions read like those of a disturbed young woman projecting onto God her own visions of hell. On dives and Lazarus, it is by no means clear that that was intended to be a portrait of eternal suffering. If so, one would have expected Paul to have made far more of a fuss about it – as apart from anything else it was a big departure from Jewish teaching.

Ah well, we might never know to the extent that we’d like the state of mental order or disorder was in those who have passed this life long ago. All I can say is that there have been those who were warned of this by their spiritual directors and the teaching was in place for them . . . to not practice penance to the point of bodily harm. So I take some of the psychology of today with a grain of salt as it cannot be applied with a wide brush to those whom they have not examined.

Maybe, Paul did or didn’t read it like most of Christianity reads it; though I think he did. We see nothing from our side in Paul that confirms annihilation and denies eternal punishment. I guess that is where we are: we are trying to wrap our heads around God and His Mercy, Goodness, Love and Justice and we cannot. Infinite in these things we have no way to try to make God into our image of these infinite attributes. As for me . . . I accept the warnings and the outcomes of His Justice while still proclaiming His great Mercy and Love by offering to share Himself weith us in a way that is unthinkable and unfathomable. That is enough for me.

All very true, dear friend. I see that St C’s confessor advised her to eat – as one who has suffered with that one, my heart goes out to her. But I really can’t see that as more than her own projections – may be true, but may be not.

I don’t see much in Paul about eternal torment, and would be surprised if there were given it wasn’t part of the Jewish teaching.

But yes, in the end we can only accept what we have the Grace to accept I think.

Indeed so dear friend. Granted we are only speaking of personal understandings so it is interesting things to think about. The problems I have with your take is that I must do violence to the way I understand scripture, to the teachings of saints and their visions and to make St Paul into what he never was inteded to be: the authority of all teaching. It is remarkable that this status for Paul (the one Apostle that did not live, eat and drink with Chirst) is like the end for all arguments. Yet he built upon the Jewish traditions and the Apostle’s recollection of what Christ had taught them. True . . . like a number of converts . . . he had a special calling for sure. But others built upon him just as he built upon others. It seems there is a notion to go back closer to Christ and jettison all the theology that was built upon their work. To me, it seems to try to shake the foundations of the Church, Her mission, and thereby the obedience we are owed to that mission. Or is it just me ? ? ? 🙂

No, I don’t think so, but I don’t think it really needs to do violence to anything. As I tried to explain in my post, it seems to me that most of the references in the Gospels can be taken either the way Augustine and the Church since have taken them, or in the way that Athanasius and some non-RCs since have taken them.

It seems to me as though the Church has not thoroughly debated this ever, and it may be that the raising of the issue and of the fact that there is more than one way the Fathers read this, may be the prelude to such a debate?

Certainly for me, in dealing with young people, the sort of things said by St Catherine of Sienna are a total turn off for them. I can’t get any traction along this line at all – they just ask why anyone would worship a God like that – and ‘the church says so’ doesn’t work with them, and I can’t help wonder how to deal with such an obstacle?

I suppose it would take the same effort, dear friend, to that which you use to defend Job, the OT God and the writings in the NT about Hell. She is worth defending in my mind as is the nature of saints.

And even if the Church did not define this in a specific document with anathemas etc. it was incorporated into her very fabric and in all its teaching. It will not change, dear lady. Though it is a good way for us to think about these things . . . the stuff that is in the Catechisms around the world will stay. More nuanced arguements may appear to satisfy the discontent but in large . . . it will be as it has been. The annihilation theory was never taken up . . . by any large portion of the Church and so it is not incorporated into our doctrines. So yes, I read the scriptures that can be read differently . . . as you and Rob do. But the teaching as I received it seems quite right to me and their reading of the scriptures also seem quite right to me. But then again, I am a Catholic by choice not by birth. 🙂

Over here quite otherwise. I have had this one come up so often – from an Anglican point of view there are answers, but I really couldn’t come up with one from the RC point of view that wouldn’t confirm the view that God is a monster – alas!

. . . but I do not, nor do any Catholics think Him a monster, dear friend. Surely, you can make a Catholic argument if you wanted? I know you could. I’m sure C could help you put one together if you asked. 🙂

He does . . . and even warns us (out of His loving concern for us) what evil awaits us if we choose other than His Love. I can tell my son (at an age of reason) not to jump off a cliff because of the consequence. If he does jump and sufferes the consequence he’s been warned of, am I to blame? Should I perhaps, have chained him up to prevent his nearing the cliff . . . or do I let him have some amount of freedom? God is love . . . it is our rejection of love that causes all the trouble.

But here is where the problem lies. If you son jumped off the cliff but was badly hurt yet survived, you would not torture him for the rest of his life because he had disobeyed you.

The problem is not with the idea that those who disobey die and miss eternal felicity, it is with the idea that God deliberately got the devil to torture them for ever. You would not do that to your son, nor, had I one, would I, and we are but miserable sinners not worthy to loose the latchet of his sandals – so why would God do something we’d shy away from? That’s the pizzle for me and many.

No, of course not. My story would be that he would survive with injuries that torment him for the rest of his life. I would not euthanize him in order to relieve his pain. But here we are speaking of the finite bodily life: but can’t it symbolize somewhat the stakes of disregarding our Lord on our immortal souls?

Our souls need make a simple choice: between one which is wholly natural to the soul and another which is not. And of course He warns us . . . has preserved our race through Adam when he had committed an offense that is infinite in severity. Christ can and did pay the price but if I don’t want him to . . . then is God going to euthanize the soul?

Yes, I agree it can, and in this life, whilst we still have time to repent fine. But the idea that there will be eternal suffering for those, and, as St Catherine says, God will find some satisfaction in that, seems abhorrent. We are told we shall be raised to eternal life if we believe – not that we shall be raised to eternal torment if we do not. Is it not more loving and merciful to let those who reject God cease to exist than to let them be tormented forever with the knowledge they should have chosen otherwise?

Jess – I think you find it hard, temperamentally, to conceive of people actually preferring their own company to that of their loving Creator. I don’t find it hard; I have met people like that (and I pray for them).
Incidentally, a play about CS Lewis’s The Great Divorce (which I mentioned a few hundred comments ago!) is now on in Broadway.
When talking to those outside the Faith about God, the important thing is to help them to realise is that life is a deeply serious business; indeed, it is a matter of life or death; we are either responding to the love of God in our daily lives – or we are not. That has consequences for our immortal souls. God is Infinite Love – a love that waits for our ‘Fiat’. Our Lady gave hers – but her kind of humility is very hard to imitate; we have to battle with our pride all our lives. The prize if we conquer ourselves is to know at first hand the love of God – infinitely surpassing anything we could conceive; but what if we choose not to?
We have to bring this drama of the spiritual life home to enquirers; “Christ ‘aint no pussycat” as my late, saintly, pp used to say.

Thank you Francis. I can quite conceive of people bad enough to reject God – it is the idea of a God bad enough to sentence them to torment forever which troubles me. A God who allows their sin to deprive them of the reward promised to the faithful is one thing, a God who hands them over to the devil to be tortured forever seems to me quite another 🙂

Ms. Mantel needs healing. I’ll pray for her. Reviling the Saints of God is not wise nor does it demonstrate Christian love. Petty is the word for it, petty jealousy. Some folks can only feel good about themselves if they are putting others down and the more esteemed their target is, the better they imagine themselves than. If I put down a bag lady, I’m only one up from the curb, but if I put down a Saint, I’m one up from them! So, egoism is ugly. They know us by our love. Not much love of Holy persons in Ms. Mantels “analysis” to the mental condition of some women and men. Shameful. Too bad. God bless. Ginnyfree.

The woman clearly suffered from anorexia/bulima, and if you think anyone is jealous of that, you really need serious help. You seem to have a problem with your unthought-through assumptions being questioned. St C’s own confessor advised her to eat and she refused – great example there to all young women – not.

If you want to live in mediaeval times, fine, but you have not even tried answering my question about how this medieval line of thought is going to help evangelise people who don’t share your views already.

Mantel was reviling no one, by the way – you seem to regard all dissent from your mind-set in this manner – are you sure the blogosphere is for you? You will keep encountering those who think differently, and you appear to have no way of doing so other than to accuse them of things which n one but yourself can see. As I say, if your aim is to show people why Bosco takes the view he does of your church, keep digging.

If there visions were of what existed in their own time then that is another matter than that which shall exist in the age to come. Unless you can answer whether their visions were prophetic of eternity I do not think their visions have any relevance to the topic.

They lived in accord to the teachings of the faith: everlasting hell and their words when or if they mentioned it was that of everlasting torment. The following short article quotes 14 of the Early Fathers regarding hell. They are all consistent.

Rob, I only interpret Scripture in light ot what the Church has already known and said and taught about them. I would never, ever presume to know more than the Church and if something I thought of on my own proved to be mistaken regarding an interpretation of the Scriptures, I would promptly discard it in the trash bin and make a good Confession about the mistaken notion and praise God for allowing me to see where I was wrong. I’m a convert. There is more than one notion from my old days in the trash bin of life. Out with the old and in with the new. Yeppers, I swept the house clean and when the devils show up to try and wrangle their way back in with fancy lies and smart sounding deceptions, they fail. They’ve tried. Sometimes I see an shadow of the things I used to believe in others and immediately beg God on their behalf. I was really in such darkness that I was blind to how dark the darkness actually was. There is a good analogy in this: sit in a darkened room for about 3 days, one with only a single candle light in it. Then step out of the room onto a sunlit beach at high noon in the middle of a baking summer with an ocean of truth before you. You will be blinded by the light and only hear the rushing of the waves and feel the spray on your face. It will take a while for you eyes to adjust to the blinding sunlight. Dazzling. At that point in a journey for a soul seeking the Light one is most likely to have a flood of feelings and ideas pass through one from the bones up and it gets very overwhelming and one falls to the knees on the beach and weeps, sometimes if the Spirit is willing, for days on end and you spend quite a bit of time totally amazed at how blind you actual were and then that starts the tears and trembling all over again at having been delivered from a completely futile way of life the new life in Christ. He will show you a bunch of your follies and you will praise Him for it and at the same time beg for Mercy, which is actually what is moving you to ask for it in the first place and also while this is going on, your flesh trembles when it also thinks of the place it has left behind and you realize Who it is you’ve offended and then you begin to not want to do anything else that would offend this One Who is bringing you to your senses. Yes, bringing to your senses alright but at this point those around you think you’ve pretty much lost all your marbles because by then you’ve changed quite a bit though just a babe in the new found City of God, you see all things new as He said. People generally fear for you at this point and when asked what is going on, you stammer, I’ve found Jesus or I should say He’s found me……….and all kinds of other such nonsense which usually comes out as babble and those who see you like this and hear what you say, are fully convinced that you have indeed lost you marbles and they begin to pray for your poor soul. Yeppers. Nuts for God. There are a few who do recognize the “symptoms” and when you find them and they welcome you, you feel extremely relieved and fall into their arms begging to know what the next things are that you have to do. Um, that day for me was when I knocked on the Rectory door and asked for some help. I did quite a bit of trembling then, something Jess would interpret as in another light than the one it was for me, which is sad. She needs a god who never strikes fear in the breast and who never chastises those loved. I do not know such a god, nor do I wish to. I kinda like the Majesty in which He showed Himself in my life. God bless. Ginnyfree.

P.S. Anyone who has been thru this, NEVER has any doubt that Hell is very real, because that is exactly what I deserved and where I would’ve gone had I slipped on a banana peel back then. Praise God. Savior of the world He is.

A brilliant account. I had a similar conversion experience (even though I was a cradle Catholic at the time). I was allowed a glimpse of the possibility of Hell. Terrifying – and it would have been all my own choice, not God’s. Like Ginny, I know Hell is real and that I had a choice: to turn to God or to listen to the voice of despair, prompted by Satan. (BTW, I also follow St Louis de Montfort).

He doesn’t mean she is God; just that she was singled out by divine election for a unique role: to be the Mother of the Messiah. Which Church Father wrote (I think I quote accurately), “God became Man so that men could become gods?” (not literally ‘gods’ but partaking of divine life – the only life that ultimately matters for us all.)
And on bothering about evangelisation: being ‘saved’ – whether you are a Christian or not – is not about ordinary goodness; it’s about becoming holy. That is a tall order; ‘living well’ on its own won’t get you to Heaven. In the evening of our life we are judged on love (St John of the Cross). Christian missionaries bother to evangelise because Christ is the goal and nothing less than Christ will suffice.

Rob, that which has been divinized is that which has been totally sanctified. Mary is where the rest of us are supposed to be. God intends to sanctify those of us who will dwell with Him for all of eternity in the Heavenly Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem, recreated after the dissolution of all things by fire after the Final Judgement. Mary has already received the fullness of grace in that regard, as the Archangel Gabriel said in greeting her, “Hail! Full of Grace, the Lord is with you” or if you prefer, κεχαριτωμένη which is kecharitoméni. She is the singular vessel of this particular grace. No other human has or will achieve this singularity in all of the history of mankind, yet those of us who run this race so as to win and never lose sight of the goal will also one day be divinized, completely sanctified, mind, heart, body and soul, ever molecule of me will be fully holy, divinized as Mary, God’s own Mother already is. This is not to say I will be her, but I will be likened to her, fully her daughter as well as fully God’s daughter. This is the goal of our salvation in Christ and why He sent His Son to die, so that we too, might inherit and eternity likened unto Him in every way. Our Mother has preceded us there. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Rob, if you don’t understand what the man means, don’t go twisting his words to say what you’d like to see. The sentence does not say worship Mary like a god or instead of God. In fact, the actual paragraph you quote is inaccurate. I have several copies of True Devotion, and paragraph 49 in its entirety reads as follows: “The salvation of the world began through Mary and through her it must be accomplished. Mary scarcely appeared in the first coming of Jesus Christ so that men, as yet insufficiently instructed and enlightened concerning the person of her Son, might not wander from the truth by becoming too strongly attached to her. This would apparently have happened if she had been known, on account of the wondrous charms with which the Almighty had endowed even her outward appearance. So true is this that St, Denis the Areopagite tells us in his writings that when he saw her he would have taken her for a goddess, because of her incomparable beauty, had not his well-grounded faith taught him otherwise. But in the second coming of Jesus Christ, Mary must be known and openly revealed by the Holy Spirit so that Jesus may be known, loved and served through her. The reasons which moved the Holy Spirit to hide his spouse during her life and to reveal but very little of her since the first preaching of the gospel exist no longer.”

No where in that paragraph does it state what you say it does. Perhaps you mean a different work or paragraph? Let me know.

Let’s see, I see a fam, which I’m not even sure is part of a name, phillip with two l’s not one which is most assuredly male, then francis. Um please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m confused. Sorry for not getting your gender correct. Silly me.

My surname is “Phillips” and my initials are “F.A. M.” (the “F” now explained) I don’t know how I got transcribed thus on this blog site – but if Jess could delete the last “francis” I would be obliged as it understandably confuses people.

I’m not going to go through all the requirements that Church places on any private revelation before they declare it “worthy of belief.” I only site what the Church finds worthy. As I say, nobody has yet had one that I am aware that showed annihilation of soul or heard about annihilation of souls. Actually, I like the term I used yesterday better: the euthanizing of souls. 🙂

Here is the paragraph he needs Dave, CCC # 67 – “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations.’ ”

You seem now to be proposing an eternal human component called ‘spirit soul’ whereas scripture gives us no such concept but rather spirit and soul. All this is Greek to me rather than Biblical as you say in line with the culture of the society of the time perhaps contrary to the divine revelation.

Not everything is in scripture Rob. It was written to inform the average mind. When we start pondering the nature of a soul, the difference between the animal souls and the spiritual soul of man then we must rely on our rational minds informed and built on over time.

Fear Jess, here is a bit from an article in the Land O Blog written about amongst other things, Hell. The author is making use of the Dialog of St. Catherine of Siena, a true Church Doctor and Mystic. Her spirituality is mother to many. In the article I give a link to, you may find an answer or two. You may even want to read other things the Blogger provides. I’d highly recommend you read St. Catherine of Siena instead of Cullmann or Barth, but if you prefer, read all three and your Balthasar and make honest comparisons. It least you’ll have something solid to compare the shoddy craft of the others to. Here is the bit from the article and the link: Eternity without God:

God the Father said to St. Catherine of Sienna, “I tell you, in hell there are four principal torments and all the others are offspring of these.

The first is that these souls are deprived of seeing me. This is so painful for them that if they could they would choose the sight of me along with the fire and excruciating torments, rather than the freedom from their pains without seeing me.

The first suffering revives the worm of conscience, and this is their second torment. For when they see that their sinfulness has deprived them of me and of the company of the angels and made them worthy instead of seeing the demons and sharing their fellowship, conscience gnaws away at them constantly.

The sight of the devil is their third suffering, and it doubles every other torment. At the sight of me the saints are in constant exaltation, joyfully refreshed in reward for the labors they bore for me with such overflowing love and to their own cost. But it is just the opposite for these wretched little souls. Their only refreshment is the torment of seeing the devil, for in seeing them they know themselves better: that is, they recognize that their sinfulness has made them worthy of him. And so the worm gnaws on and the fire of conscience never stops burning.

Their suffering is even worse because they see the devil as he really is- more horrible than the human heart can imagine. You will recall that when I once let you see him for a tiny while, hardly a moment, as he really is, you said (after coming to your senses again) that you would rather walk on a road of fire even till the final judgment day than see him again. But even with all you have seen you do not know how horrible he really is. For my divine justice makes him look more horrible than still to those who have lost me, and this is in proportion to the depth of their sinfulness.

The fourth torment is fire. This fire burns without consuming, for the soul cannot be consumed, since it is not material (such as fire could consume) but spiritual. But in my divine justice I allow my fire to burn these souls mightily, tormenting them without consuming them. And the tremendous pain of this tortuous burning has as many forms as the forms of their sins and is more or less severe in proportion to their sins.” http://catholic-skyview-tremblay.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-god-told-st-catherine-about-heaven.html

I will read it – but what a monster that God is. He is omnipotent = he can do anything – but he can’t relieve the torment of these people. Why on earth would you, or anyone, worship a God like that? What do you find admirable and loveable about that? To be honest, I’d rather be an atheist and take my chances than worship your monster God.

You are the best anti-Christian evangelist I have come across – do you have much success in convincing anyone to come to your faith?

These comments are not helpful Jess. You can do better. I’ve no more time for this today. Do bother with St. Catherine. Like I said, she is a spiritual mother to many and may do your poor soul some good. God bless. Ginnyfree.

You are welcome to a mother who takes satisfaction in the thought of ‘the damned to be tortured eternally’ – really, you think God does that? Sounds more like the morbid imaginings of an hysterical young woman. You are right, her comments are not helpful – all her senseless witterings are doing is to convince n=me she was unwell and that a church which accepts them is equally unwell.

You have done, and are doing, an excellent job in convincing me that there is smething seriously wrong with a church which thinks the omnipotent God takes pleasure (yes, I did read that in her witterings) from people in torment for ever. A shame she did not get the help she needed – a bigger one that a sensible adult in the modern world believe this guff.

I am an argumentative young thing, that’s for sure 😊 I much appreciate your patience – and of course, this is all speculation- but as Newman used to point out, without speculation there would be no orthodoxy 😄 Yes, I think we hav a shellac disc with a hole in the middle 🙂

Ha! It is a worthwhile discussion if for no other reason than to bring out the opposing views and how they have come forward. But the end result is where some misconstrue the fact that we cannot say definitively who or how many are in hell does not mean that it does not exist and that no souls are there who suffer eternally. So we reach an impasse rather quickly if we hold each to one view or the view of the Church.

If it seems like I am merely a stupid sheep in the Catholic Church; I confess I am. Before I joined I speculated on many other theological questions and then researched them. After being proved in my mind that I was wrong I made the final leap of faith and accepted ALL that the Catholic Church Teaches and that She cannot teach error (as Universal Teaching) as the Holy Spirit would prevent it on the promise of Christ Himself. I love your arguments for they are well thought out. I just love the Church’s arguments better. 🙂 xx

Christ founds a Church.
Christ says that He will give them the power to loose and bind.
Christ tells his Apostles that He will not leave them orphans but will send to them the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit will bring all things to mind.
They then witness the Pentecost.

So, we do not believe that the (wider, of universal church) capable of teaching error. Individuals might from time to time or even in an area of the world . . . but not officially as a universal belief.

I guess you need to be Catholic to see the Apostles as the typology of all the leadership of the Church as it grows? That is why I say what I say . . . I am Roman Catholic and accept that which is taught by the Church. So far from seeing this issue as a problem I see it as a solution and it leaves me free to work on charity, penance and prayer without expending my time rehashing what the Church has put before us as Her Teachings. I hope that makes a little sense. I’m not a robot . . . but became convinced that She would not lead me anywhere but where God wants us to go. It is the path She sends me along that I trod. 🙂

But for many centuries the church did teach and proceed in in ways that were clearly in error and for which it has now apologised. If the RC Church was in error over one issue then the claim that it is protected from error is in fact ‘just another of its errors’.

I would be interested if you could find one that was universally taught by the Church as Dogma.

As to the preternatural gift of bodily immortality; theolgians (as they did with the Trinity and 2 natures of Christ) developed this thought 1st) because God did not make man in His image to have it dwell in corruption and 2nd) after the fall God tells them that they will suffer the death. And yes, this is a typology of the death of the soul though sin as well (the second death). But we have gone over what death would mean to a soul that is incorruptible by ordinary death.

Coming from someone who engages in reasoned argument and eschews personal comments, it is effective – if you are capable of it, try learning something from Dave about how to conduct yourself in public places.

Her’s a link to the whole list from Ott. His book is really good. It is a working textbook for me. If I spent less time on this computer and more time with my actual nose in it, I’d be much better off.

Yes, Ott is usually the list that you will find people use for a complete listing of Doctrine. I have seen others and they start with these but have added a few more. But I discount those as, like you, I think Ott is the best authority of these teachings.

Some early Christian thinkers thought that . . . most did not. St. Augustine seemed to lay the foundation for a metaphysical explanation of the nature of the soul which St. Thomas built upon. With St. Thomas you see a simplicity of the soul which has nothing that corrupts: it is analogized by the breath of God breathed into man in Genesis and it is as simple as love itself . . . which God will not ‘unbreathe’ nor ‘unlove’ that which He has Willed be done..The Angels are of the same spiritual substance: God did not annihilate Adam and Eve for their transgressions nor did He annihilate the purely spiritual bad Angels for their rebellion. It seems that once God speaks or breathes it is done. Now it is up to us to choose Him or self and thereby choose Heaven or Hell. It is the simplest of explanations and the readings indicate much the same . . . though we can force the text to say something else. But clearly, the overall thinking of the people who were given the NT scriptures read them in a way that most of the people heard in relation to their cultural understanding. And most people believed in an eternal soul by the time these texts were promulgated. Much more needed to be explained and in fact the Church has made adjustments to St. Thomas as well: for most believe now that the spirit/soul of man is delivered to body at the moment of conception. Had Thomas worked on the problem of the immaculate conception he might have figured that out as well and applied his findings to the nature of the soul.

Fail. The Orthodox have been there from the beginning and, lacking the personal bias, do not read these passages as you do. In fact until Leo the Great, there was no systematic definition of the claims. There are a few sporadic comments which RC apologists insist means what they want it to mean – but that is what passes for scholarship in your church. It does not pass muster with anyone else and never has.

The Orthodox agree. The problem is their church is not your church. Mind you, Jesus said to be saved we must believe in him. It took your church to turn that into ‘you must believe in the church’ – you can have the bride, I’m going for the bridegroom.

Keep in mind that our Church’s Fathers have been pretty well worked over by what passes for scholarship among the Anglicans. They’ve fine combed most everything and replaced what doesn’t meet muster among them. So, it could very well be true that Ms. Jessica has found a passage or two in a book that supposedly contains what is allegedly written by St. Athanasius. but is in fact a twisted rendition of what he actually said. Believing she had obtained authentic Church teaching that contradicts what we do propose as authentic becomes a point of departure. She may or may not be aware that her sources are tainted and shouldn’t be read as credible witness to what the Saint actually said and taught. God bless. Ginnyfree.

And you know what about Anglican scholarship? Could you even name one Anglican theologian?

I think you will find the process is not quite as reductive as the one you prefer. You may be right, it is not unknown for Catholic theologians to falsify the past evidence – Donation of Constantine anyone? But Anglican ones prefer sound scholarship.

Sound scholarship reveals that back in the fourth century the church had no fixed doctrine about hell, so what St Athanasius said, as with what Origen said earlier, was within the bounds of what could be believed. Later, your church got all defensive and, when it found it could not argue its way through, began to burn people. Worked out well for you.

Funny you mention those who got toasted. Um, Jess. I really hate to point out to you that your church, the Anglican church, began its history by murdering Sts. Thomas More and Bishop Fisher. It continued killing us Catholics for centuries. It made us criminals and kept us impoverished for centuries and even these days. Do you have a head count of the number of priests who were slain on English soil for bringing the Sacraments to souls? I mean really. You brought it up, but your church has it beginnings in beheadings. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I hate to point out to you that the decisions were reached by secular courts and carried out by secular agents – rather as with your Inquisition – from whence the English imported the idea. If I were you I’d not have the nerve, or lack of memory, to go down that route. After what your church did to the Cathars? Really! That takes nerve!

The only Catholics it killed were those like Fawkes who was a terrorist. Or do you think people who try to blow others up in the name of religion should be let off with a caution?

I think if we did a head count we’d see which church killed most. Do remind me who forced the Jews to convert in Spain, and then still persecuted and killed those it dod not expel.Nazi Germany learnt its tricks from somewhere.

Your “church” began by murder. You can lay all the murders you’d like to at our feet but the historical record speaks otherwise. I will not re-teach you history by responding all the false accusations you rattle off. You cannot say that your Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It was founded by a murderous King, a mere man who struck at the true Church thru her Ministers by Martyring them. Your founder is most likely in Hell with everyone else who dared raise a hand against God and His Church and you cannot “save” him by denying Hell’s existence. But you can “save” yourself from a similar fate by recognizing the simple truths of Catholicism. QVO is correct and you are wrong. Annihilism is Tom foolery. God bless. Ginnyfree.

So, when Bloody Mary burned Cramner it was OK, but when a court found More guilty it was murder. When you learn some real history, do come back and explain the difference. My Church was founded by Jesus as much as yours was or the Orthodox was. Of course your Church won’t let you think that, but so much the worse for its falsifications.

Sometimes the only ones who can tell the difference between authentic Catholic stuff and the Anglican renditions is a good librarian. But with so many editions it does get hard to keep track of who is writing who these days.

Not for most of the last century – anyone from your lot who wrote anything the Pope didn’t like got banned. That’s why so much of Catholic theological thinking is still medieval. Fortunately with Vatican II men like Raymond Brown did some good work. Most of your decent theologians like Hahn and Longenecker were not brought up Catholics and so learned how to think without worrying about some bishop censoring them

AKKKKKK! I give up! You actually like Raymond Brown??? Oh my goodness Jess. He’s a bloomin’ heretic if there ever was one! Oh Jessica. Read some better books would ya. Hell is real. Brown will surely help you get there.

There needs to be a Letterman Top Ten Lies That Sent Folks To Hell. Number 6 would be listed right from one of Brown’s books- Coming in at number 6: Hell is only a state of mind, not a real place.

Sheesh. Even third graders know there is a Hell and they know mom and dad told them how to avoid it for sure.

Ummmm Jess, an everlasting destruction is a destruction that never ends. Sounds a bit like Hell to me. But since you’re serving mincemeat Bible pie for Christmas. I’d thought you were trying for cherry tarts, but I guess I was wrong. Silly me.

No, that would be the same mistake Protestants make when they think that if we say that the Mass is an everlasting sacrifice, it it eternally repeating – it is once for all, we reparticipate in it at every Mass. We don’t reenact it. Another fail grade for you.

Baloney! If he didn’t think those who were lost would burn eternally, he wouldn’t have worked as long and as hard as he did to try and save a few. Nor would he have bothered to blast those trying to distort Christ’s teaching! History proves you wrong. So does Scripture and common sense. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I love your idea of argument. When you find one, feel free – until then keep the bluster coming thick (v thick) and fast. if you understood the first thing about how history works you wouldn’t be so funny.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are two deaths – after the judgment the damned will not exist – only you seem to believe that a person can be destroyed and still exist. we are told that soul and body will be resurrected, not that there will be any soulless bodies.

Precisely! That is why I brought up the etymology for the word annihilate: “an·ni·hi·late Origin – late Middle English (originally as an adjective meaning ‘destroyed, annulled’): from late Latin annihilatus ‘reduced to nothing,’ from the verb annihilare, from ad- ‘to’ + nihil ‘nothing.’ The verb sense ‘destroy utterly’ dates from the mid 16th century.”

It was first used as a notion in the mid 16th century which simply put means that Jesus and the Apostles neither used the word nor meant it when they taught about Hell. That being so, then there is no way it could be Biblical. God bless. Ginnyfree.

If you destroy a person, she is dead. You are right about what the Greeks believed, but the Jews did not believe that. So unless you are claiming Jesus and the Apostles adopted Greek mythology as their world view, you are in error.

Jess, cease. The word annihilate is too new a word to have been used by either the Apostles or Jesus Christ in reference to to everlasting torments of Hell. Here is some support for this from an online etymology dictionary. Your word “annihilate” was penned in the 1500’s.

late Middle English (originally as an adjective meaning ‘destroyed, annulled’): from late Latin annihilatus ‘reduced to nothing,’ from the verb annihilare, from ad- ‘to’ + nihil ‘nothing.’ The verb sense ‘destroy utterly’ dates from the mid 16th century.”

So then, if it originates from the 1500’s how can it be Biblical at all since the Bible was completed before the death of the last Apostle, St. John?

Oh dear, nice try but utter failure. The Bible was written in ione Greek, that is a later word. Fail grade. What is so funny is you think my argument is bad and your counter argument is an utter failure. You are so funny sometimes 🙂

Actually Jess, it is Koine Greek and that is my daughter’s specialty. She translates and corrects folks on it for a living. She is one of a handful who can do what she does. And you cannot have access to her great mind and works thru me. She actually corrects folks prior to the publication of their Phd’s and other assorted academic papers as well as archeological stuff too. Shes much smarter and a bit better educated than her mom. My Phd is in cookies and pie. Yeah. I’m a bit proud. Can you tell? God bless. Ginnyfree.

Do you have a degree in missing the point? My point was that it is not the word used in the NT – if your daughter says it is, then get her to provide the link. I can’t find it in the NT, and I bet she can’t either. Now is there any chance of you actually responding to something I have written as opposed to your misreading and misinterpretation My post is now up if you actually want to engage in a serious discussion.

One other thing Jess, Jesus it is who will judge the dead after they are all resurrected on the last day and it is He who will cast them into the eternal fire. Do you think His Father is going to say, “wait Son, I love them all, and You died for them, so skip all that nasty judgement stuff, okay?” NOT. Next.

No. I think the wages of sin is death. You think Jesus is going to say ‘cast this one into hell to burn forever.’ I think a merciful and a just God will let the dead stay dead and raise the just to eternal life – it is all there is you read the Bible without the propaganda you have been fed to keep you good and scared.

God destroys evil – that is what he does with it. In your mythology, he allows evil to exist, people to be tormented for ever, and people like you to be fine with it because you are in eternal bliss. Your heaven sounds a ghastly place. All these smug people being happy whilst billions suffer for eternity. You can imagine being happy with that?

Do try reading. I know Americans often do not get irony, so just for you – a heaven where someone can be happy knowing some other poor soul is frying in a lake of fire would be a ghastly place. It would be like sitting having your Christmas dinner whilst watching film of starving children – but a bit worse.

It’s clear that Jess indicated she was referring to your fictitious heaven not the Lord’s heaven. Why do you continually respond with meaningless comments they get boring? Perhaps because you have no grown up ones to appeal to.

How do you know who has died outside of the Church? And not everyone believes in Purgatory as you have defined it. Some of us believe that this Purgatory is an intermediate state between now and the final judgment for all. Let’s call it Sheol or Hades as Scripture refers to it as.

Yeah. That’s basically what I said too and you told me that I needed to call it Purgatory…@_@

Any way though, the Eastern Catholics also tend to permit everyone into Sheol as that is simply the resting state of all the dead between now and the final resurrection. I don’t think that the exact nature of Purgatory has been completely sorted out.

Kathartirio is the word they use, but it means the same thing: a state after death in which the souls that aren’t yet perfected for Heaven must pass thru. They don’t like the Latin word, purgatio because they use Greek and have for a long, long time. But essentially it is the same thing. They also believe that prayers for them are effective and should be said. They offer Masses for them as well. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I think the Protestant suspicion about Purgatory is that Catholics have invented it. But it simply means ‘cleansing’. When we die we will be outside space and time. Perhaps ‘purgatory’ is the instant after death when we meet Jesus face to face; now knowing fully the price of our redemption, this encounter will be our ‘cleansing’: the piercing pain of realising what we have neglected to do on earth and the longing to be at one with Him for ever. Nothing imperfect can enter Paradise; when we die we are generally still flawed in some way; hence our ‘cleansing’ to be able to enter heaven.

When I think of Hell I this of The Great Divorce by CS Lewis – the best imagined conception of Hell I have read; it’s all about self-love, nothing else. If you have enough self-love, there isn’t any space for God to squeeze in. I have a holy picture with the words, “It is on earth that Heaven is born” (with a picture of the Baby Jesus). By the same token, it is on earth that Hell – tragically – is also born. We don’t need to speculate about the theology or if people are actually there; we must just
pray for those afflicted by the vice of self-love – that they will turn from themselves towards God.

PS: When we think of Hell we think of Hitler. This is a mistake. I once read an anecdote that gets closer to the reality: Two Scottish ladies are leaving the theatre in Edinburgh after watching Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”. One says to the other, “Does she not remind you of Mrs Macmurdo at number 23?”

There is no ‘prison’ in the Hebrew ‘Sheol’ – the body and the soul are, as Hebrews has it ‘destroyed’.

There is a much wider question here which no one answers.

If the he victory the Messiah has won is the eschatological event, it surely cannot have reached its goal until evil is abolished? But if hell is eternal conscious torment than clearly some of God’s creation is still infected by the reign of sin and rebellion? How does that one work then?

Hell exists, but there is no one alive in it – my post tomorrow will be an expansion of why I think this is so.

This seems to ignore simple Biblical teaching about the eschatological purpose of Christ’s coming. .

The chief purpose of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). In order for Christ to truly be victorious over evil, from an eschatological standpoint, everything that is evil- at some point- must cease to exist. However, if the traditional view of hell is correct, evil doesn’t cease to exist at all but continues on and on for all of eternity. In the traditional view of hell, Christ is not the victor– he simply contains evil, allowing it to continue in some corner of God’s new creation.

On your reading, God regards what we regard as evil – eternal torture – as good. And you wonder why some think your God a monster? You may worship a being like that, but I don’t.

Jess, are we to believe you or Scripture? If you think we should believe the Scriptures, then good for you. However, if you believe we should believe you and place our spiritual trust in your words over the Scriptures, you could begin writing for the Watchtower! I hear they are hiring and need some slick marketeers to keep the gullible duped into supporting them. You’d fit in nicely. God bless. Ginnyfree.

In my post, up soon, I cite Scripture 100 times. When it is up in 30 minutes, then ask that question and you will see the answer. I believe in Scripture – I read what it says and follow it. At some point, when you have stopped responding to things I have not said, I am sure you’ll get round to answering the ones I have.

No, you can’t. I am an Anglican, and it seems you don’t know very much about theology but know what someone told you to think. Fair enough, but if you can’t engage, just say so. it is becoming clear you don’t have the equipment, if that’s any help.

No Rob there aren’t any shady priests around here looking to ease your time in Purgatory for a few coppers added to his pockets. But how much did you pay for Balthasar’s stupidity? How about Barth? Read him yet? You pay with it all for following the theology of idiots like that. But the good news is this: if you’re headed in the wrong direction, God allows U-Turns. Seek the Divine Mercy. Here’s a nice link to get you started: http://www.thedivinemercy.org/message/devotions/praythechaplet.php
May you have a holy and blessed Christmas season.

Oh Hello QVO! I’m so glad you popped up. I want to give you a Christmas present: There is a 15 day freebie available at Church Militant you can take advantage of. I want you to go there, sign up for the 15 day free subscription so you can watch the Premium stuff. Then I want you to watch a particular show of his: F.B.I: Catholi-Schism. It is a marvelous and thorough going over of the SSPX and their history and troubles. I won’t take no for an answer QVO. Go. It is free and will only cost a bit of your time, a little more than an hour. Please. You are worth it. Merry Christmas. Ginnyfree.

It is a freebie. I doesn’t cost you a red cent. You will have 15 days to watch the Premium stuff and then after that you can pay if you want to. I want you to go there and watch that one little video FBI: Catholischism about the SSPX. In it is a bunch of stuff you NEED to hear. That’s all. It won’t cost you a dime, a nickle, a shekel, a shilling or a peso. It is free for 15 days. Pleeeeeeeeease. Go there and watch it. Just for me????!!!?? You’re worth more than many sparrows. Just do it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

There you go again. Extrapolating from one passage of scripture and then reading into it something you want to be true.Yes, they are spiritually dead – when alive. That says precisely nothing about their state when dead.

I provided a good deal of reference in the piece, go back and read them.

Destroyed = annihilation when it comes to a person – and I proved destruction with scripture many times. There is little indication that God takes delight in the idea of his creatures frying nightly for ever. Hell is not eternal – Revelation says it will be cast into the lake of fire – do try to stay consistent with Scripture if you are going to claim it supports you.

You have failed to show that a person can be destroyed and still have an existence. I never said ruined, I said destroyed. Of course you can’t answer – fair enough, just say so. You have to believe what you church says without question – a fine position for a man with a brain to be in. I am sorry for you.

It is the word which is absent, not the concept -and one reason with your church is the obvious one – people saw what happened to people who dared think and say what they thought. It is why most of the theology of your church since Aquinas has been so barren and most of your good ones were educated u=in another system. Can you think of a nineteenth century RC theologian with the reach of Newman? No, but then your church had no idea what to do with Newman’s gifts and distrusted him.

The Eastern Orthodox have a variety of views, let me find you some links.

‘And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?” indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.’

You’ve still failed to properly cite which work it is from. Proper citations that can be verified are usually considered credible. If you have them, they should be provided along with the actual quotation. Especially since you are claiming that a certain Saint was in denial of a de fide truth. I have no more time for this nonsense. You have your opinion and that is all it is. Your point is pointless other than to chew up my time. It is getting tedious. Thank you for your views. They are simply your views. The Truth is changeless. No matter how many words you string along in a row and call them sensible, rational truths, they will not change the Truth. My faith makes fools of the wise. That’s what having faith is all about. We believe the unbelievable and bet the whole farm on it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Um Jess, from the EWTN Document Library: At Athanasius’ Discourse Against the Arians, #3, Chapter 29 is about the following: CHAPTER XXIX: TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW xxvi. 39; JOHN xii. 27,
&c. http://ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII4-17.TXT
Ummmm, see how easy that is. You should’ve done as much. Your paragraph is #57 of that particular text.

As QVO has already pointed out, there is no reference to annihilation of either body or soul mentioned in said paragraph. It is about the fact that man cannot choose to die as Jesus did, nor can a mere man restore his own life, as Jesus did. The source you use is different from the text as found at EWTN, BTW.

Here it is in context to the rest: ” 57. And as to His saying, ‘If it be possible, let the cup pass,’
observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked(1) Peter, saying, ‘Thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’ For He
willed(2) what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the
willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh.
Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the
Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become
man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He
combined His own will with human weakness(3), that destroying this
affection He might in turn make man undaunted in face of death. hold then a
thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ’s enemies impute words of terror,
He by that so-called(4) tenor renders men undaunted and fearless. And so
the Blessed Apostles after Him from such words of His conceived so great a
contempt of death, as not even to care for those who questioned them, but
to answer, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men(5).’ And the other Holy
Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they were rather passing to life
than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of
the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself was in terror,
through whom they despised death? But from that most enduring purpose and
courage of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the Godhead was not in terror,
but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death,
and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called terror did He
remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men fear death.
His word and deed go together. For human were the sayings, Let the cup
pass,’ and ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and divine the act whereby the Same
did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, ‘Now
is My soul troubled;’ and He said divinely, ‘I have power to lay down My
life, and power to take it again(6).’ For to be troubled was proper to the
flesh, and to have power to lay down His life(7) and take it again, when He
will, was no property of men but of the Word’s power. For man dies, not by
his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the
Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God,
to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would.
Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, ‘Thou shalt not leave My
soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see
corruption(8).’ For it beseemed that the flesh, corruptible as it was,
should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of the
Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come
in our body, was conformed to our condition, so we, receiving Him, partake
of the immortality that is from Him.”

Yes, oddly enough, I read that in a better translation than the one you used. Having said I cut and pasted, you cut and pasted more; the difference is that I offer some comments, you provide a huge slab of text without. You do make me laugh.

Of course I could simply point out that he means eternal life in Heaven as opposed to the same in Hell. His words do not disprove the existence of the immortality of Hell. They are meant to show that the soul’s fate is in the hands of the person whose body houses said soul and that they make an active choice that determines their personal outcome. God bless. Ginnyfree.

BTW Jess, Jesus died. How’s that you say? God died? How can that be? God cannot die. Why He’d be destroyed, wouldn’t He? If God can die, how can He be eternal? I mean that makes no sense at all! Dear, that is how ridiculous you sound trying to disprove life after death. Try that one for some speculatin’ Better fools than you are have gone there all serious-like and thought they had it all figured out. You really could talk yourself into a good stretch of nonsense on that one. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Jess, do you really want to deny there is life after death? Is that really how far you want to go? Think about it. You expect to have us “prove” to you that there is life after death.
Do you still believe Jesus was resurrected and if so, did He receive a real body back or was it a spiritualized/transformed type of body, perhaps He wasn’t even really in a body to begin with. How far would you like to go? You may never survive your ventures into what Dave charitably calls “speculative theology.” God bless ’em. I have another word for it. It is small, roundish, dark brown and comes from the tail end of a horse.
Oh and after we’ve spent way too much time “proving” life after death to you in the vain hope that you may acknowledge that there really is a Hell that God sent His only begotten Son to save you from, you’ll simply say, “well, I don’t believe that because the Greek word is different, so poo on you and your trouble,” and have a good laugh. Not exactly edifying behavior, but that is who you are and I’ve gotten to know you. Like I said, you were an enigma here for me for a while. Now I know you better. God bless. Ginnyfree.

You know, if you stopped to read what I write, you wouldn’t be asking that question. I nowhere deny there is life after death – I even quote Paul. It is you who deny what Paul wrote – he wrote the wages of sin is death. You claim they are a life of everlasting torment.

It is sad that you need to twist Scriptures to that point Jess. God gets no pleasure from the ruin of a sinner. That too is found in the Scriptures. It is sad that you find solid theology repugnant. You may never get beyond that state of mind. I hope the best for you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

You have yet to show that there is anything solid in what you say. Thus far you have misread the Greek, made up your own riff on what the worm means – so pardon me if I find your attempt to accuse me of twisting scripture a poor joke. When you come up with a sound argument, do let me know. Oh, and the passive-aggressive tone you use doesn’t work with me.

Dear Jess (and Ginny), I am sorry to read this increasingly disputatious exchange. As Christmas is almost upon us, let’s cease from it. As a Catholic Christian, I agree with the Church’s constant teaching on Hell, both in Scripture and tradition, as does Ginny. Speculative theology reminds me why I am a Catholic; Jesus founded a Church so that we wouldn’t flounder as to what to believe – or not. Having read Geoffrey Sales in the past, I think that as an evangelical Baptist he also shares the Catholic doctrine on Hell: that it is eternal and always the result of our own choice. Fr Longenecker’s homily, which is very sound and which Dave posted up in a link to on this thread, quotes Padre Pio’s response to those who told him that “God is too good for the existence of Hell.” He said, “You’ll know about it when you get there.” A blunt response from a saint who knew about the reality of sin and how it can trap the soul in a deadly embrace. But rather than conclude with Hell I will relate an anecdote about the death of St Dominic Savio, witnessed by St John Bosco, his mentor and friend; the boy, dying aged 14, told Bosco “I I have just had a vision of a human soul in a state of grace; it is so bright and beautiful!” Don Bosco asked him, “Is it brighter than the sun?” The boy replied, “It is brighter than 40 suns!” Rather than speculate about Hell, let’s pray for those in danger of it – that they may come to repent and know the love of God before they die – so that they will die in a state of grace, rather than of darkness.

Actually it is pretty typical of apologetics to me. We agree to disagree and do so. It isn’t a warm and fuzzy place to live in. Not by a long shot. No, I really don’t need to be loved or affirmed by others much. I try to live a Montfortian spirituality: for God Alone. It works for me. I hope you can broaden your understanding a bit. I don’t really care much for human affections though it is nice to be liked. I don’t need to be. God is my judge and it is He alone I seek to please. This removes the need to be approved of by others pretty much. Hope you understand. God bless. Ginnyfree.

There is a wide difference between the need to be approved and the need to offend and ridicule others rather than engage with their thoughts. You do not always seem to appreciate this chasm and reply in a very unloving and rude manner. Human affection may not necessarily be the required behaviour of a disciple of Christ respect and love towards others is I am afraid obligatory. You would do well to meditate on your obligations towards others.

Gee, Rob, thanks for the admonishment. I’ll consider it. Wanna dish some up to the gal who said I know nothing? Or how about yourself two posts ago calling me rude? Yeah seems tossed pots like calling kettles black. I really am only a sinner and no one’s Savior. Actually the “respect” I think is expected here is actually to agree with the faulty theology and treat those whose errors annoy me as if they are correct. I was already told by Jess that I’d been “corrected” and she did seem a bit miffed that I failed to accept the correction simply because I maintain my position. I’m Catholic. I don’t waver. I don’t change when the theological fashion statements get made. God is changeless and so is the stuff I know about about Him. And that is that. Nuff said. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I would not expect anyone not to hold to their Catholic faith if they have made a considered study of it as you have. I do not think that you should respect any views you consider to be in error. You should treat the person expressing what you consider to be errors with respect. You do not always do this. You make comments that claim others have said things they have not by twisting their meanings and you make snide remarks about them suggesting they are cult members when I am sure you differently.

I on the other hand am not making snide remarks. I told you are rude to people because you are. It gains nothing but can hurt others feelings. It is unnecessary and does not enhance any case you are trying to make.

The temptation for me is to simply ignore you and never make any response to any of your comments, which I did for a while.

You have a valuable part to play here as an informed source of official Catholic belief and quotations on many matters. This enables others of us to understand your faith and appreciate where you are coming from. You put us in the position of being able to consider what Catholicism teaches – which is all you can reasonably expect.
If you could drop the unfortunate edge that accompanies JUST some of your comments I for one would be grateful and enjoy learning from you store of knowledge.

I do hope that your Christmas is all that you could hope and pray for.

Let’s see, if the cherries you picked were only the only words in the Bible. Isaiah 33:14 “Who of us can live with consuming fire? who of us can live with everlasting flames?” Luke 3:17 His winnowing fan is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

The next one is two part thing: Rev. 20:10 The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Rev. 20:12-15 I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. 13 The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. This pool of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire. There ya go Jess. God will judge everyone from the first man Adam to the last and those not worthy of Heaven will be cast into the same pool of fire where the devil and the false prophet and all the other demons are forever and ever and then we, the righteous will hear the Great Amen! to all that in Heaven and be saying along with the Angels and Saints “Amen!” And don’t ignore Rev. 21:8 either. It does have another of those annoying Catholic lists though – “But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

“Let’s see, if the cherries you picked were only the only words in the Bible. Isaiah 33:14 “Who of us can live with consuming fire? Who of us can live with everlasting flames?” Luke 3:17 His winnowing fan is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
The obvious answer expected to this rhetorical question is that NOBODY can live with everlasting fire.

Thanks Jess and I hope your Christmas is all that you could hope for and that you have a year to come with increasing energy and strength in every way.
It’s not what Ginny fails to understand that I find unfortunate in someone claiming to be a Christian but her rudeness and superior attitude.

Rob, there is a bunch you can learn from those short verses. When was the book of Isaiah written? More than 700 years before Christ, so way back then, they knew of Hell, death, that eternal life begins at death, that there are those who are alive and burning, that they want to avoid that fate, that there really is an answer to their question, but they don’t have one yet. There are other things you can glean, but I brought it up because it shows the Jews more than 700 years before Christ knew of and believed that there was a lake of fire that burns forever and that those there were alive in a different way than those asking the questions of the Prophet.
Jess needs to see a specific word in the Bible before she will believe. She wants to go SS on this and for a reason. Oh well. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Oooops. I forgot the trustworthy testimony of St. John the Baptist to the eternity that Hell is – he calls it an unquenchable fire. Yeppers. If his word recorded in the Good News isn’t good enough to convince Jess, then I give up, cry Uncle and take my marbles elsewhere to play. I’ll only get insulted for my efforts and told I know nothing. Yeah. So, that being the response, I’d be a fool to continue. I might feel foolish some other time. God bless. Ginnyfree.

This is an example of what might be called confirmation bias, surely? You think Matt 3:12 (I assume you are referring to that) is a reference to hell, but if you didn’t think that, why would anyone reading it think it was? It could as easily be a reference to people perishing forever in the sort of burning of a city that would happen to Jerusalem not long after Jesus ascended. You seem to think there can only be one reading and that reading is yours. At least try to engage with my arguments. All you do is assert you are right. I offer reasons for my views, you don’t.

No, Jess, it is you who are ignoring Biblical teaching. It is so fundamental the Christian mind that fear of Hell is sufficient for contrition and remission of sins. God honors that. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Not so. “where the worm does not die…………….” If the worm is alive so is the soul and body of the person being gnawed upon by said worms, etc. Nice ghoulish thought isn’t it?
Jess, it really is going to take some mental gymnastics to eliminate life after death. But you’ve convinced yourself and I suppose you have a good argument that will doubless prove there is no life after death. Can’t wait to hear it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Ghoulish, yes, Scriptural, no. Into Gehenna were put only dead things, and they were put in constantly, which is why the worms seemed to multiply for ever. There is no mention that live people were put into Gehenna – that was, indeed, the invention of the sort of people who like horror movies.

Rob, the JW’s believe as much. Did you pick that cherry from Ezekiel? I asked you this once before and you ignored me then. It is the very verse they use to disprove death, etc. Unfortunately a good look at any days news will prove that death still takes a toll on the living every day. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Rob, I am putting this comment here but it is regarding the quote from Louis de Montfort. I can’t figure out where else to put my comment, the thread has grown to monumental proportions!

Anyway, I can’t find the quote from de Montfort that you asked about. His book, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, is divided into numbered paragraphs (so Ginny was quoting paragraph 42, not page 42) (or whatever number you gave, I cannot scroll back up and look for what the number was) (yes I am getting overwhelmed!). If you can give a paragraph #, that would help, so I can read the quote in context. (I tried searching the quote on the Internet and didn’t come up with any direct link to that quote.)

74. What I say in an absolute sense of our Lord, I say in a relative sense of our Blessed Lady. Jesus, in choosing her as his inseparable associate in his life, glory and power in heaven and on earth, has given her by grace in his kingdom all the same rights and privileges that he possesses by nature. “All that belongs to God by nature belongs to Mary by grace”, say the saints, and, according to them, just as Jesus and Mary have the same will and the same power, they have also the same subjects, servants and slaves.

Hey Dave! Three points to you for finding the correct paragraph. Yippie!

I explained what I think it means: “Rob, that which has been divinized is that which has been totally sanctified. Mary is where the rest of us are supposed to be. God intends to sanctify those of us who will dwell with Him for all of eternity in the Heavenly Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem, recreated after the dissolution of all things by fire after the Final Judgement. Mary has already received the fullness of grace in that regard, as the Archangel Gabriel said in greeting her, ?Hail! Full of Grace, the Lord is with you? or if you prefer, κεχαριτωμένη which is kecharitoméni. She is the singular vessel of this particular grace. No other human has or will achieve this singularity in all of the history of mankind, yet those of us who run this race so as to win and never lose sight of the goal will also one day be divinized, completely sanctified, mind, heart, body and soul, ever molecule of me will be fully holy, divinized as Mary, God?s own Mother already is. This is not to say I will be her, but I will be likened to her, fully her daughter as well as fully God’s daughter. This is the goal of our salvation in Christ and why He sent His Son to die, so that we too, might inherit an eternity likened unto Him in every way. Our Mother has preceded us there. God bless. Ginnyfree.”
As for Mary and Jesus having the same will and power, and the nature and grace stuff, keep in mind they are talking about His human nature and there is not a problem for anyone to see that full of grace means she obtain her sanctification at the moment of her immaculate conception. It isn’t hard for those who want to believe but for those who only want to throw stones, not so much. Jesus was fully God and fully man, but Mary could only be fully human, so it is natural the what God has by nature, she has by grace. Simple stuff really. He is fully at her disposal and it is thru her intercession that help for any Christian seeking her aid can easily be had for in being who she is, His Mother and His Queen, He can and does hear her in both capacities as well as others. This is what is known by heart by those who have met her in her Litany. In praying one’s way thru these titles of our Lady, you find out what they mean. Lex orandi, lex crendi, lex vivendi. Or in Ginnyspeak, if you pray it with an open heart, you will come to believe it, and once that is achieved, you will live it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I would simply say that Christ’s Will is eternally the Will of the Father and the Holy Spirit by nature; Mary’s will is the same by Divine Grace. If Christ dwells in my heart by the action of the Holy Spirit then Mary is also my mother by Divine Grace. I owe obedience and love to both a Father and a Mother. I am adopted into a family with a Mother and a Father. And the will of all of these are by Divine Grace the same.

Hey, if that works for you, it works for you. For me it has always been to Jesus thru Mary. I do think I ‘splained it well, though I do expect the usual insults for my efforts. Ah well, insults are honors and all the rest of that.

I don’t deny what you said Ginny. I am saying it is not an either/or; it is a both.Of course Mary leads us to Jesus. But we normally first receive Christ into our hearts via sanctifying grace (Baptism and Eucharist). That said, She is not bound to that realm. She often goes to the unbaptized and the unlearned and brings them to our Lord: She in fact, is probably the best evangelizer of the Muslim. If they open their hearts to Her, She brings them to Jesus just as you say. She continues to come to our aid throughout our pilgrimage if we will let Her. There is no greater advocate among the ranks of men than is Our Lady; my Mother through Grace.

I agree with this, dear friend. As I wrote to ginny, we have to distinguish between personal, pious devotions, and Church doctrine. I love Our Lady and find her a great comfort, but I do not need her to access Jesus, nor does any sinner; personally, I find her a wonderful help, but I know others who find their way there without her.

Jess, I don’t think I’ve said that everyone needs to go to Jesus thru Mary. I said that is what I do. It is my personal devotion. I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote, but that is okay. I do know I’ve never say that the ONLY way to Jesus is thru Mary and I’ve never said that the Church teaches that. I do take pains to make sure I’m not misrepresenting the Church when I write this stuff. I think I’m pretty good at that actually. Have been told so by others not here, so I’m not too concerned when you read into my words things that aren’t there. God bless. Ginyfree.

I never said you did, I said this sort of language if used unguardedly could give that impression – as it did. Reread my last comment, I distinctly drew just the distinction you make here between personal piety and church teaching.

No one is insulting you; for someone who does consistently insult others, you are remarkably sensitive. What is happening here is that we are not agreeing with you – if you regard that as insulting, that;s a shame.

Rob’s point here is simple – and Bible-based. I am devoted to Our Mother, and I love her, and I have always found her a great help. But this is a personal devotion, and I come to Jesus as he himself said, via the Spirit. I think some Roman Catholics give an unfortunate impression here that it is the Church which says you come to Jesus via Mary; it doesn’t. It is necessary, not least when dealing with non-Roman Catholics, to draw a distinction between personal pious devotions, and Church teaching. De Montfort’s language is quite understandable, not least in the context in which he was writing, but it can leave those unaware of these things with the notion that Roman Catholics treat Mary as equal with God. That is not, of course, as I am sure you will agree, the case, neither is it what the church teaches.

I have no problem with hell and you (Ginny) should cease accusing others by attributing the problems that you consider they have to them!

I follow the church tradition I belong to in interpreting the scriptures on the innate immortality of the soul and consequently on the temporary nature of hell. Not my private interpretation as some accuse me of.

If I were wrong on the nature of the soul I would postulate that the essential feature of hell would be, self imposed, everlasting separation from God and that all the descriptions of hell would be but descriptions of the effects of that separation.

In this case I would hold that God’s omnipotence was limited in that He was unable (rather than unwilling) to bring to non-existence those he had created.

Either explanation would answer the charges that unbelievers make against God.

I have no problem with hell I am trusting the merits of Christ and His work in me to take me safely to heaven.

It does sometimes seem to me as though some converts converted on the assumption that theological thinking had stopped, which is why so many seem to dislike Vatican II. The Vatican, as that piece shows, is moving toward a position not a million miles away from the one you adopt.

Hello GrandPa Zeke. Actually I typed out from my own copy and it is all of paragraph 49. It isn’t even close to what Rob says it says. I’m thinking he has either been given bad information and is passing it along or he simply made a typo on the paragraph number. Since I typed it out of a book and didn’t cut n paste from someplace on the Net, there is no place to check except I give you the ISBN. Want it?
And yes, this is really getting to be one hell of a thread isn’t it?

Zeke and Dave:
Having read your comment on the meaning of the clause I quoted from de Montfort I take it that what was meant was that the qualities of Christ (e.g. His will being perfectly alinged with the Father’s) were perfectly replicated in Mary ‘by grace’ and that this concept may be derived from the salutation to her i.e. ‘full of grace’. I find nothing in this that is objectionable or heretical in such a claim.
If as it seemed on my first reading that everything ‘due to Christ’ was ‘due to Mary’ I would have been fully aware that such was against the teaching of the RCC. So I questioned how a Catholic would consider de Montfort’s language.
Ginny:
It would be helpful if you were not so rude and did not accuse others of dubious motives and pass judgement on them. Many not from an RC background are not familiar with the exalted language used by RCs about Mary. I have read things in RC books about Jesus and Mary which amount to blasphemy against Christ. You should expect from some non-Catholics a degree of suspicion and need for clarification of some RC writings about Mary.

Rob, not to be nit picky, but you mean PAGE 49 not Paragraph 49. The reason we give paragraph numbers to certain writings is so that when they are referenced, it matter little which actual copy of the work you are working from. A page number on the other varies from publication to publication. So, when you said it was from paragraph 49 or True Devotion, that threw those of us who know this numbering system off. I didn’t realize that you also have a problem with our Mariology. Perhaps you could put an essay up and we could give you some feed back. It is too far off topic to continue here. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I initially referred to page 49 of the on line copy of the book I quoted accurately which you rudely and unjustifiably accused me of twisting what was written. So it was not my reference that threw you off; but that you took my reference to page 49 as being to paragraph 49. Recheck the thread and you will find it was your error not mine (not to be picky).

In my reply to Zeke I changed to the use of paragraph 49 after others were using that (that was stupid of me).

I didn’t read all the comments in full, so forgive me if this has been said, but the way I understand it is that one should not fear God like one fears an “old ogre” as you put it, but that one should trust in Him.

The fear that we should have is the type that one has to a beloved father – when you love Him so much that you are afraid to offend him for fear of causing Him pain. (Not that we can really cause God pain, but that is the general comparison.)

I guess I am a bit of a Saint Therese fan, because I fall back on where she said that one can never have too much confidence in God. If I recall correct, she did not fear God, and if she did, I think it was only in the way that one loves a father and fears to offend him. But not as a big meanie. (I am no expert here, but that is what I got.)

Scaring people into loving God is what is often done simply because most people are too hard hearted to really care about loving God, so they get “scared” into imperfect contrition and an imperfect love of God. It might not make great saints out of them, but it just might at least get them into Heaven, so that is good in one way.

Nonetheless, I would rather it were the other way. I would rather there were more who were madly enough in love with Him that they shared their “madness” with the rest of us.

That is actually one of the things that bothers me about traditionalism – I feel like everyone is so focused on the rules that they obsess to the point of servile fear, rather than joyful love. Then again, I think that is common to many people, but just probably stands out more in traditionalism because of the emphasis on getting things right.

I am also on the same page as with fear there is torment and what Father would want to see his children in torment – good to see the recent posts and be hearing from you.

At the moment Mary and I am in Tenerife for four months where we have come for a long break from the work.

We arrived here via the UK where we attended my father in law’s funeral. He was Anglican from the high church tradition. The hymns were great and the vicar told us how he arrived for Sunday mass about an hour and a half to wait in God’s presence – he then went on to preach a bit on the value of such waiting. This was the day after your post on waiting. The whole atmosphere of the funeral was more like a wedding with appreciation for his life and little sense of sadness.

So true! 🙂 Perfect love casts out fear. I think we have to always try to understand all the quotes in context to one another, otherwise we are likely to think many different things that do not mesh. A holy, loving fear of offending the beloved can go quite well with a lack of servile fear which would leave us paranoid in His sight. It is all a balance, and all very deep. 🙂 xx

Jessica, My comment strays a bit away from the other comments here. I cannot judge who is condemned and who is saved. I also don’t know who God is in all his totality. So I only offer the following thoughts.

When I think about hell, I think about a lake of fire (Rev 20:15) that is a second death and destroys both the body and the soul. This is very very Bad. When I think about God’s love, I think about consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29) that redeems and purifies and gives eternal life to both body and soul. This is very very Good. How can both of these things about fire be true, a bad destroyer and a good life giver? Looking up verses that contain references to “fire” in the Bible, there are many more that speak about God and the Holy Spirit than there are that speak about hell (no I didn’t actually count them so I may be wrong). Am I wrong to conclude that even hell’s fire is part of God’s fire and is not actually a separation from Him? I suppose this is an outrageous thought, but after all, God created everything that exists. And I guess this brings me back to responding to your post: Yes, in some way for some reason, God is both a God of a consuming fiery love and a God of fiery wrath. But it is all God.

Oh brother now I think all I did was state the obvious. Time for another cup of coffee.

Does the Catholic Church teach that body and soul are destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire? Interesting if the church teaches that as Rev. 20:14 tells us that hell is also cast into the lake of fire.

Rob, I don’t know. I was quoting passages in the Bible about fire and not quoting any Catholic teaching. Someone more knowledgeable than me would have to answer your question. (I wonder why it would be surprising to you that the Church teaches about body and soul being destroyed, I don’t think I understand your question and would be happy to read more of your thoughts on this.)

I think that the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that Hell is eternal and that those who do not benefit from redemption in Christ will suffer in eternal conscious torment in Hell. Your quote about the destruction of body and soul in hell, to me seems to indicate that the unsaved will not exist eternally. The Revelation 20:14 the verse previous to the one you quoted says Hell will bw cast into the Lake of Fire.

I take this to mean that Hell and all that is in it will eventually be destroyed and cease to exist. This view of final judgement is known as ‘Conditional Immortality’ (you can Goggle it for a full explanation). It is the view I hold rather than ‘eternal conscious torment or universal salvation. Hope that helps. Always good to correspond with you Grandpa.

Thank you for this Rob. In the little bit of searching (online) I have done on this topic this morning I see that theologians have been grappling with this problem for lo these many years and I certainly can’t add anything of value. It does bring some very interesting questions to my mind to ponder on, so for that I say thank you again. (I realize now that I have previously avoided thinking much about hell other than that it is to be avoided 🙂 Whether hell entails eternal torment or complete oblivion, either option is extremely painful to contemplate. I would have to wonder, off the top of my head, what purpose God would have in eternally tormenting those who no longer have any hope of redemption? Complete oblivion seems more compatible with the idea of death vs eternal life but I freely admit that I do not know the ways of Almighty God.)

Rob, I’d love to answer your question in detail as I’ve recently finished a rather long winded study of the end times stuff. I’ve got time constraints. Christmas is coming and I cannot sit at my computer all day long. Start an essay and post it in a few days here and I promise I’ll chat it up with you. The end of the world IS coming! Really! It is true. Our Liturgy in the weeks leading up to Christmas is well peppered with allusions to the end of the world, etc. I’d not mind sharing about it, but in honesty, I won’t have the proper amount of time it deserves till Christmas weekend or so. So, if you’re still interested, post an essay to start it off and I’ll respond.

I’m thrilled you watched the video. It is beautiful. God is good.

I;m sorry for your recent loss. I will pray for the repose of her soul and that you find your peace in Christ again.

The end is certainly closer than when we first believed and it is our responsibility to be ready whenever it comes – and the end of this phase of life could be any moment for any of us.

Personally what motivates me is Peter’s admonition for us to “Hasten the day of the Lord” by “Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the whole world before the end comes”. This seems to indicate to me that the end of this age is not entirely independent of our response to the Lord in obeying and fulfilling His command.

Pastor Brian Zhand has a way with words that captures the imagination. And he is a pastor that has taken time to read the church fathers. In a recent post, he quotes Saint Antony who wrote, “I no longer fear God, but I love him. For love casts out fear.” Brian confronts the common misconceptions and images of God that depict him as “mercurial and merciless, petty and vengeful.” He posted – ‘God is Not a Monster’.

No, of course He isn’t; it is we who turn Him into one, in our flawed and human imagination. But there is still the problem of evil – what Coleridge, describing Iago in Othello, called “motiveless malignity”. We cannot conceive of people utterly rejecting God – but it is possible. They have made a ‘hell’ for themselves in so doing.

A mortal sin has three elements: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. The grave matter is a given – but full knowledge? I doubt it for many people. And many women are e.g. coerced into abortion, so they may not have given full consent.

I thought I remembered that the first to speak about an eternal conscious torment in hell was Justin Martyr. I have found these quotes on the internet but am not able to check the source document from here and do not have the skill to assess the accuracy of the translations.

“[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons” (Justin Martyr: First Apology, 52).

“… the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” (The First Apology of Justin, Chap. VIII)

“Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. (The First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII)

“When some are sent to be punished unceasingly into judgment and condemnation of fire; but others shall exist in freedom from suffering, from corruption, and from grief, and in immortality.” (Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho, Chap. XLV)

Imagine how some here would react if I explained how we will rejoice in the Justice of God at the Divine Illumination when all the sins of mankind are revealed? It is far beyond what some here could handle. Yeppers. Way too much and boy o boy God would be called worse than He already has been and so would His Saints if a certain person was told we will rejoice in the Lord to see Judgement passed upon the wicked and witness their pains as they are tossed into the Hell of the damned. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Dear Jess, after reading most of the comments here I can only say that I take solace in remembering that after God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden (Paradise) for their willful disobedience, he clothed them.

I may be wrong about this but I think that was bittersweet. Until then they ate of the fruit, herbs and nuts. After then they klled animals for food, clothing, shelter and sacrifices for sin; fhs old order and the peace between Adam and the beasts was ended. Someday, though, that order is to be restored. At least we have been told it is so.

Back up a few steps Dave. God killed the first animals, not Adam nor Eve. He it is who gave them the skins of animals to wear. The figgy leaves were useless. Death was the price for sin, but notice it is God who sheds blood first and it is blood of animals for the two people. This gets ignored lots, but it is very significant for it is God who demands the continued shedding of the blood of animals in the Temple. These two witnessed the first sacrifice of life for a mercy: that of clothing the naked. Think about it for a little while. Adam and Eve had never seen death before. God bless. Ginnyfree.

To add to your remark, Ginny. It was the very first vicarious sacrifice made and the first lesson given to the newly fallen. The clothes were given to cover their shame (sins). It required the blood of the innocent to intercede for them. It is the first indication of what type of sacrifiece was ultimately required: in infinitely perfect vicarious victim; the Son of God.

I forgot a second point to ponder Fave, the peace between man and beast remained until after the Flood. Otherwise Noah wouldn’t have been able to get them peacefully into the Ark. God bless. Ginnyfree.

I don’t think so, Ginny. I think that that particular episode was a special gift and even the beasts that came had been led by God. I’m sure they were using leather, sacrificing (he took unblemished lambs for sacrifice with him). First thing he did when he found land was to sacrifice of them. But it is interesting.

Dave, here it is in Genesis, Chapter 9:2 – “Fear and dread of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered.” More than one Father of the Church has commented on this verse. I once heard Mr. Hahn talk it up too. I really don’t have time to look things up to show you. It is true. The animals behaved differently towards man before this. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Indeed so, Ginny. I included this in an abbreviated form in the book I wrote for adult ed. It is quite useful to follow the development of themes begun in Genesis or Exodus throughout the Bible. This is one of many.

I guess that what I meant to say is that we are to trust in God’s perfect justice. Not just any old justice, but God’s Perfect Justice. Justice is one of God’s attributes, or so I read at link below.

The fact that people are divided and divisive about the nature of hell is a clear indicator that we are trapped in our own imperfect thinking and imperfect sense of justice and really has no bearing, to my mind, on the divine reality. For example, God stands outside of time, so what does the word “eternal” mean in terms of “eternal torment”? Catholics (maybe others as well) envision Heaven as the eternal Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and I like that idea very much, but does this really mean literally we will be feasting for all eternity? In some way, yes we will, but what exactly that entails in a truly spiritual sense we cannot know. We can quote scripture and mystics all we like, but these are only hints to what might be and we should ponder these things in our hearts and not clobber each other over the head with what books we have read.

Of course I could be wrong.

This much I do know: God is perfect and therefore can be trusted and adored. End of sermon. 🙂

Good sermin Zeke – we must trust Him – He alone is the Just Judge. If we were capable of understanding a love that made Him pay the price for our sinfulness, we might come closer to understanding what it means to say God is love.

God’s Love is God’s Justice. I think Dave came closest to my understanding of all of this when he said something about those who are damned experience the fire of God’s love differently that those who are blessed. The “fire” applies to God’s passionate love and presence as much as it does to any notion we have of hell and torment. That fire has to be both Love and Just because it is God. This may not be in the Catholic Catechism, its just my thoughts on the subject.

Don’t blur those lines too much Grandpa Zeke. Get it right – there is no love in Hell. Just a never ending hatred for all that is holy. Remember that Hell was the place God made to house the devils and they hate with that famous diabolical hatred. So, if you try to imagine a different type of the fire of Divine Love burning in Hell, you’d be sadly mistaken. In Hell is nothing of God. One of its well-known features is the total lack of God, and this includes everything that is holy as well. Hoep this helps. God bless. Ginnyfree.

All rightie then! I double dog dare everyone who has participated in this thread to pray earnestly to God for at least 10 minutes with heart wide open and beg Him to show you the truth about Hell, if it is real to give you knowledge of it and if it isn’t to let you know that too. If you do this in earnest, I have confidence your minds will fill with a bit of Light on the subject. Just kneel down and tell Him all you think it means and ask if He will show you if it is true. He will because He loves you and died for you and desires that you might be saved. In order for that to happen you must have a knowledge of any thing that may not be quite right in His mind about certain things. Only those sincerely seeking the Truth have it revealed to themselves. Sincerity of heart should be desired and if you look inside and see a lack, ask for that to be remedied. It will be. Beneficent is our God. He’d love to give it, but if you never ask……………………God bless. Ginnyfree.

“He loves you and died for you and desires that you might be saved. In order for that to happen you must have a knowledge of any thing that may not be quite right in His mind about certain things.”
Ginny – you seem to be saying here that in order to be ‘saved’ we must understand every theological point rightly. Surly you did not mean this am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

Rob, only those who are genuinely invincibly ignorant qualify for that category of persons who will find themselves in Heaven with little effort on their part. If you can read and actually have read a Bible, you cannot claim ignorance any longer for yourself. If you stretch what I’ve said to the point where only those with Phds in theology enter Heaven, then God bless you man, cause I never said any such thing. You do have knowledge of the Kingdom, yet you spend most of your time denying much that needs to be accepted. This is why you have arguments and issues with persons like me and a few others. If you deny Me before others, I will deny you before My Heavenly Father. Don’t let that happen to yourself, Rob. God really did die for you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Yes quite: Although her earlier statement seemed to suggest that if you were unsure of the correctness of RCC doctrine on the everlasting torment of hell you could not be saved. That seemed ridiculous to me but I could not get a straight answer as to if that was what Ginny meant.

Well, watched what Mr. Boyd can do and well, we didn’t think our way to revelation. We didn’t posit our doctrine after studying for a couple hundred years as he states and we certainly didn’t mix up some Greek stuff with some Christian stuff and add a little Hebrew stuff of flavor and pop into the oven and pull out a developed doctrinal state to reveal to the world! Hello????? And he says we call that piece of cake “mystery.” Yeah. It wasn’t very kind of him to say that about the early Christians.

He needs to review his Scriptures: 1 John, Chapter 1:1-3 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life 2 for the life was made visible; we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim now to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; for our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. What we have seen what we have heard, this is what we preach.

So, Rob thanks for the video. I’ll find lots more laughable stuff at his website I bet. Wonder if he’ll mind if I visit and comment on his theology. Oh dear. Think he will? Thanks for sharing. God bless. Ginnyfree.

we must have been listening to different versions of this ginny. The Church did put forward its doctrine after 300 years – it’s called the Nicene Creed and dates from 325; it was revised in 381. The word hypostasis, used by Leo the Great at Chalcedon, and is a Greek concept. I am sure your daughter will be familiar with Prof Fr John McGuckin’s work on St Cyril of Alexandria, which, among other things, describes well the Alexandrian setting out of which Athanasian and Cyrilline theology came. What milieu do you imagine Christian theology came out of? What is your problem with the idea of ‘mystery’? As for reading Scripture, back atcha – do you imagine the word ‘logos’ is Hebrew. In the beginning was the Logos. You have not, personally, seen Jesus, any more than I have, you have heard about him from the Church, and you have experienced His Spirit in your life, as Rob and I have.

It seems to me the difference is you, like your Church, imagine Jesus is wholly-owned by your franchise, a view also taken by the Orthodox; you cannot both be right. Rob and I recognise that the Spirit works through a church which God alone knows the boundaries of. You get worried about your Popes, you get upset about your bishops, you laugh at other people’s experiences (or did I misread your comment about Greg’s website) and we listen, because we want to experience God as the Spirit guides us.

Actually Jess, the feel I got from the video was that Mr. Boyd was making fun of our use of the term Mystery to describe the things of God that are beyond understanding fully. He needs it all logically explained. I can understand that and so his need to poke fun at us in that regard. Doesn’t mean he’s right, just understandable.

As for not seeing Jesus, well that isn’t exactly true either. I do see Him in the Eucharist. I love it when the priest holds Him up for all to see and says, “Behold! the Lamb of God…..” It is still a marvelous time to simply say “Hello!” to God. Works for me. I usually say “Deus meus et omnia,” interiorly. But sometimes I do the simple stuff too, like “good Morning God, its me again…..” They don’t hold Him up for as long as I need though. I wished they’d go a little slower and lo and behold, God heard my prayer and one of our priests actually did make a fuss about doing this part of the Mass slower! Jesus is very good to me sometimes. I get a few more seconds, but I’d prefer a whole minute to reverence Him. I’ve heard tales of how long some of our Saints spent adoring at this point in the Mass. Some even went into ecstasy and the rest of those assisting would have a long wait they’d dared not interrupt. But I’m prattling on. Sorry to bore you with Catholic stuff.

No, I have not responded to the call from God in my life as you and Rob have. I’m Catholic. So there’s that point you bring up.
Now, about the insulting stuff: “imagine Jesus is wholly-owned by your franchise,” My Church is not a franchise, nor do I see it that way. This insults me and my Church all in one cutesy little comment. And you seem to see yourself as not throwing any insults my way. Hmmmmm…..not so much.
The Spirit is Christ and only leads to the Father. There is only One Church and it isn’t a boundaryless invisible entity that only God knows of. Too much to pick apart in that little statement, but we’ll have to wait to do so another day. It is off topic for the essay on Hell unless you want me to mention that belief in the visible Church is also required of Christians as a de fide kinda thing for which Hell could be the outcome if denied unto one’s own particular judgement. Might want to keep an open mind about this part Jess.

Gotta admit it is fun mincing it up with you Jess. Glad you’re back from your “sick-leave.” Be well, feel well, do well. God bless. Ginnyfree.

We read Boyd’s comments in different ways, I did not see that in them.

Yes, we Jesus in the Eucharist, but not in the way St John was describing in that passage you cited; unless, of course, you receive in the hand? I always receive on the tongue as I was taught, so I can’t honestly say I have touched him.

It is never boring to hear about how others experience God. Oddly enough, I too am a Catholic and always have been I just am not a Roman one, so “Catholic stuff’ never bores me, although I am always amused by those who claim they are the only Catholics. Did you not feel called by God to be a Catholic? If not, where did the call to become one come from?

There is only one Church, and its boundaries are known by God alone, although sinful men have always done the territorial stuff. The Orthodox advance exactly the claims you do, and have a better record in terms of sticking with the Creed as agreed at Nicea and Constantinople, so if you want to go into that, bring it on.

No, belief in the visible church is require by your church, and although you may not have noticed, it isn’t the only church which claims to be the only church. It is not my mind which is closed on this one 🙂

My new one will be up soon, with some RCs supporting the kind of views I advance. No doubt they are modernist heretics or something – but as with capital punishment, your church is moving against old vengeful views of what God wants. The Spirit is leading it, and you will either have to go with it, or not, as the Spirit moves you.

Looking forward to your newest, Jess. In the meantime here is a link you may want to look into regarding the visibility of God’s Church. It is by a man named Tuttle. Who couldn’t love someone with that name? Might even call my next kitty Tuttle.

Jesus Christ Established a Visible Church On Earth

by Fritz Tuttle

Every Christian believes that Jesus Christ established and sustains a community of faith, hope and love for all believers. This community we call His Church. The Church that Christ founded is the Catholic Church which has a formal earthly structure established by Christ and which continues under His authority and protection.

My Church teaches just the same, as does the Orthodox Church. The difference between my church and yours and the OC is it is quite willing to see the church as having different branches. My church is a Catholic Church – and quite as universal as your church – but much more willing to admit that others are part of the church in ways known only to God. It is part of that teaching by Jesus about those not against him being for him. It is also a reading of Matthew’s Petrine passages that is older than the one your church adopted because it suited it better.

No, I am being ironical and using the sort of reply I should have used as an Anglican or an Orthodox. I find this troubling, because as an historian it is obvious to me that they all have the same roots, and confess the same Christ. The RCC and the OC both had ancient anathemata against each other which they have abandoned. I really don’t feel that any of them get to grips with ecclesiology on this, and part of the problem is that the response I offered to ginny could certainly be read from some ecumenical documents and denied by others. The thing is an awful mess, and frankly, if you are looking at obstacles to evangelisation that is one of the hugest. As someone said recently: “You can’t all be the Church, so come back when you’ve made your minds up,” I sympathised. Sorry if my sense of irony got the better of me – I am in a fey mood today.